U.S. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC 

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

FINAL REPORT, VOLUME 1 

JANUARY 26, 2001 

NCLIS 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005-3552
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005-3552 

Telephone: 202-606-9200; Fax: 202-606-9203; Web: www.nclis.gov 

The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science is a permanent, independent agency 

of the federal government, established in 1970 with the enactment of Public Law 91-345. The 

Commission is charged with: 

• advising the President and the Congress on the implementation of policy; 

• conducting studies, surveys, and analyses of the library and informational needs of the nation; 

• appraising the adequacies and deficiencies of current library and information resources and 

services; and 

• developing overall plans for meeting national library and informational needs. 

The Commission also advises federal, state, and local governments, and other public and private 

organizations, regarding library and information sciences, including consultations on relevant treaties, 

international agreements and implementing legislation, and it promotes research and development 

activities which will extend and improve the nation's library and information handling capability as 

essential links in the national and international networks. 

Commissioners and Staff include: 

Martha B. Gould, Chair

Joan R. Challinor, Vice Chair 

C.E. "Abe" Abramson LeVar Burton Marilyn G. Mason 

Walter Anderson José-Marie Griffiths Bobby L. Roberts 

Rebecca T. Bingham Jack E. Hightower 

Paulette H. Holahan 

Donald L. Robinson 

 

James H. Billington, Beverly Sheppard, 

Librarian of Congress 

Robert S. Willard

Acting Director, Institute of 

Museum & Library Services 

 Executive Director 

Judith C. Russell 

 Deputy Director 

 

 Assessment Co-coordinators:

F. Woody Horton 

Sarah T. Kadec

NCLIS Consultants 
U.S. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC 

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

FINAL REPORT, VOLUME 1 

JANUARY 26, 2001 

NCLIS 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005-3552

The Commission recommends that the United States 

Government formally recognize and affirm the concept 

that public information is a strategic national resource 
Suggested Citation: 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. 

A comprehensive assessment of public information dissemination, final report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 2001. 

4 volumes. Volume 1: A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination; Volume 2: 

Legislative and Regulatory Proposals; Volume 3: Supplementary Reference Materials; and Volume 4: 

Compilation of Recent Statutes Relating to Public Information Dissemination. 

Note: Volume 1 is available in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol1.pdf and 

in print; it contains the executive summary, the report and Appendices 1 through 10. Volume 2 is 

available in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol2.pdf and in print; it 

contains Appendices 11 and 12, the legislative and regulatory proposals. Volume 3 is available only in 

electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol3.pdf; it contains Appendices 13 through 

34, supplementary reference materials. Volume 4 is available only in electronic form at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol4.pdf; it contains Appendix 35, a compilation of recent 

statutes relating to public information dissemination. 
United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

January 26, 2001 

The President 

The White House 

Washington, DC 20500 

The Vice President 

President of the Senate 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Speaker of the House 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, and Mr. Speaker: 

I am pleased to forward to you A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination. 

This report was requested by Senator John McCain, Chair, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Democrat, Senate Committee on 

Governmental Affairs. 

This report was prepared by the United States National Commission on Libraries and Information 

Science (NCLIS). The Commission is an independent agency, established in 1970 by Public Law 91-

345 to take a leadership position on matters pertaining to the library and information needs of the 

American people. Specifically, the law calls for the Commission to “advise the President and the 

Congress on the implementation of national policy by such statements, presentations and reports as it 

deems necessary.” 

How the federal government manages its information resources is a complex matter and the 

emergence of new electronic technologies only makes the matter more complex. The results of earlier 

efforts to shape policy in this area have been mixed. Certainly, laws enacted in the past three decades, 

such as the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act, have 

established an overall framework that acknowledges the importance of information held by the federal 

government. On the other hand, efforts to modify laws affecting government printing have not met 

with success, and policies addressing permanent public availability of the burgeoning amounts of 

government information made available primarily (or exclusively) by way of agency websites have not 

kept pace with technological developments. 
In this report the Commission calls for a strong statement that recognizes government information as a 

strategic national resource with an importance similar to that accorded to land, labor and capital. It 

proposes an organizational structure that consolidates some existing government information 

activities. It calls for explicit funding for information activities, including creation, dissemination and 

permanent preservation. 

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this report provide a roadmap for reform. Reform 

is never easy; proponents of the status quo will always portray the outcome of change in the direst of 

terms. Nevertheless, the Commission has devoted a great deal of energy to examining these issues and 

it believes that the recommendations in this report are the right steps to take to bring needed reform. 

Of course, in many ways, the Commission is a champion of the status quo. We believe in the uniquely 

American approach that says that government of, by and for the people creates information that 

belongs to all the people. This approach is a jewel of our liberty. We believe, however, that there are 

also problems regarding government information and that technological developments exacerbate 

these problems. This report sets forth the ways in which these problems can be resolved. We know 

that there will not be universal support for every idea put forward. We are confident, however, that the 

ideas we present herein will form the basis for meaningful discussion that will culminate in reform to 

benefit all Americans. 

As always, the Commission stands ready to assist in any way we can be helpful. 

Respectfully, 

Martha B. Gould 

Chairperson 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................i

Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................................iv

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................v

Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ vii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. xiii

A. The Role of NCLIS ..................................................................................................................... xiii

B. Findings and Conclusions.............................................................................................................xiv

C. Recommendations .........................................................................................................................xv

Strategic Recommendations......................................................................................................xvi

Other Recommendations ...........................................................................................................xvi

Volume 1. A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination ...................................1

A. The Role of NCLIS .........................................................................................................................1

B. Background......................................................................................................................................4

The Central Issue..............................................................................................................................4

What Other Countries Are Doing.....................................................................................................8

The Current Situation in the United States.......................................................................................9

The Problems That Need To Be Fixed...........................................................................................12

A Working Definition of Public Information.................................................................................15

Public Information......................................................................................................................16

Permanent Public Availability....................................................................................................18

The Government Information Life Cycle Management Process....................................................19

The Federal Government's Leadership...........................................................................................24

Information Resources Map .......................................................................................................25

Landmark Legislative Initiatives on Government Information..................................................25

The Hidden Cost of "Electronwork" ..............................................................................................28

Information Collection Budget, But No Information Dissemination Budget ................................29

Government-Wide Public Information Services and Information Management 

Agency(ies) More Important Than Ever..............................................................................29

Recent NCLIS Public Information Policy Research Initiatives .....................................................31

What This Report Is About, and What It Is Not About..................................................................34

C. Methodology..................................................................................................................................36

Fourteen Major Components of the Study .....................................................................................36

Assessment Milestones and Schedule ............................................................................................38

Study Panel Deliberations ..............................................................................................................39

The Group of Experts.....................................................................................................................41

Stakeholder Group Participation ....................................................................................................42

Other Research Elements of the Study...........................................................................................42

Final Report to the Congress and the President .............................................................................44

Using the NCLIS Website and Study Web Page ...........................................................................45

Organization of the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations...............................................46

Public Information Dissemination Machinery—Functional Categories ....................................46

Timeframes For Addressing Recommendations ........................................................................47

Legislative and Regulatory Proposals ........................................................................................47
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

ii 

D. Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 48

1. Findings Relating to Individual Citizens (The General Public) ................................................ 48

2. Findings Relating to Disabled, Disadvantaged and Special Populations .................................. 66

3. Findings Relating to the Federal Government—Government-wide Public Information 

Policy and Standards Leadership and Oversight................................................................. 74

4. Findings Relating to the Federal Government—Individual Federal Agencies With 

Operating Missions ............................................................................................................. 89

5. Findings Relating to the Federal Government—Central Agencies With Governmentwide Public Information Services and Information Management Roles (Except 

NTIS) ................................................................................................................................ 104

6. Findings Relating to the Federal Government—The National Technical Information 

Service (NTIS) .................................................................................................................. 121

7. Findings Relating to Interagency Groups (e.g., CIO Council, Federal WebMasters 

Forum, CENDI, FLICC and Others)................................................................................. 126

8. Findings Relating to State, Local, and Tribal Levels of Government..................................... 130

9. Findings Relating to the Commercial (For-profit) Sector and the Professions ....................... 132

10. Findings Relating to the Not-For-Profit Sector, Including Professional Associations, 

as well as Academic, Research and Related Institutions .................................................. 135

11. Findings Relating to Other Areas, Including International Information Policy .................... 139

E. Conclusions................................................................................................................................. 141

1. Conclusions Relating to Individual Citizens (the General Public).......................................... 141

2. Conclusions Relating to Disabled, Disadvantaged and Special Populations........................... 141

3. Conclusions Relating to the Federal Government—Government-wide Public 

Information Policy and Standards Leadership and Oversight........................................... 142

New and Strengthened Policy and Standards Leadership ....................................................... 142

Central Policy Leadership Does Not Mean Central Control ................................................... 144

Financing Public Information Dissemination.......................................................................... 145

4. Conclusions Relating to the Federal Government—Individual Agencies With 

Operating Missions ........................................................................................................... 146

Public Information Dissemination as an Integral Part of Every Agency Mission................... 146

Current Awareness Services.................................................................................................... 147

Proliferation of Formats and Mediums.................................................................................... 147

Single, Central, Comprehensive and Authoritative Inventory and Database of Public 

Information Resources............................................................................................. 148

Revitalized Role for Agency Public Affairs Officials............................................................. 149

5. Conclusions Relating to the Federal Government—Central Agencies With 

Government-wide Information Services and Information Management Missions 

(Except NTIS)................................................................................................................... 149

Changing the Status Quo ......................................................................................................... 150

Federal Depository Library Program....................................................................................... 150

6. Conclusions Relating to the Federal Government—The National Technical 

Information Service (NTIS) .............................................................................................. 153

Preliminary Assessment of the Future of NTIS (March 2000)................................................ 153

The NTIS Mission ................................................................................................................... 154

The Public Good Functions ..................................................................................................... 156

User Fee Activities .................................................................................................................. 157

7. Conclusions Relating to Federal Government Interagency Groups (e.g., CIO Council, 

Federal WebMasters Forum, CENDI, FLICC and Others)............................................... 158

8. Conclusions Relating to State, Local, and Tribal Levels of Government ............................... 159

9. Conclusions Relating to the Commercial (For-profit) Sector.................................................. 160
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

iii 

10. Conclusions Relating to the Not-For-Profit Sector, Including Professional 

Associations and Academic and Research Institutions......................................................161

Education, Training and Curriculum Reform...........................................................................161

Public/Not-For-Profit Partnerships...........................................................................................162

New Information Policy Research ...........................................................................................162

New Information Science and Technology Research...............................................................163

11. Conclusions Relating to Other Areas, Including International Information Policy ...............163

F. Recommendations........................................................................................................................164

Strategic Recommendations.........................................................................................................164

Other Recommendations..............................................................................................................179

G. Implementation............................................................................................................................195

Appendices...........................................................................................................................................197

Appendix 1. Letter from Senator John McCain to NCLIS Chairperson Martha B. Gould, 

June 12, 2000.........................................................................................................................197

Appendix 2. Reply from NCLIS Chairperson Martha B. Gould to Senator John McCain, 

June 27, 2000.........................................................................................................................199

Appendix 3. Letter from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman to NCLIS Chairperson Martha B. 

Gould, July 17, 2000..............................................................................................................200

Appendix 4. Reply from NCLIS Chairperson Martha B. Gould to Senator Joseph I. 

Lieberman, August 7, 2000 ...................................................................................................201

Appendix 5. Letter from NCLIS Chairperson Martha B. Gould to Secretary of Commerce 

Norman Y. Mineta, August 1, 2000.......................................................................................203

Appendix 6. Reply from Secretary of Commerce Norman Y. Mineta to NCLIS Chairperson 

Martha B. Gould, September 1, 2000 ....................................................................................205

Appendix 7. Letter from NCLIS Chairperson Martha B. Gould to Secretary of Commerce 

Normal Y. Mineta, October 10, 2000 ....................................................................................206

Appendix 8. Reply from Secretary of Commerce Norman Y. Mineta to Chairperson Martha 

B. Gould, November 21, 2000...............................................................................................208

Appendix 9. NCLIS Press Release Announcing the Comprehensive Assessment of Public 

Information Dissemination, June 26, 2000............................................................................209

Appendix 10. NCLIS Principles of Public Information, June 29, 1990...........................................211

Preamble.......................................................................................................................................211

Principles......................................................................................................................................211

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................212

Volume 2. Legislative and Regulatory Proposals ................................................................................213

Appendix 11. The Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001...........................................213

Appendix 12. Suggested Revisions to The Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB Circular A130 .........................................................................................................................................213

Volume 3. Supplementary Reference Materials ..................................................................................213

Appendix 13. NCLIS Study Plan Outline ........................................................................................213

Appendix 14. Some Issues/Concerns to Address.............................................................................213

Appendix 15. Some Important Information Age Paradigm Shifts and Their Associated 

Myths and Realities ...............................................................................................................213

Appendix 16. Government Information Life Cycle Management ...................................................213

Appendix 17. An Invited Retrospective Appraisal of the 1982 NCLIS Public Sector/Private 

Sector Task Force Report ......................................................................................................213

Appendix 18. The World Wide Library...........................................................................................213

Appendix 19. FirstGov: A Preliminary Assessment ........................................................................214

Appendix 20. Linking the Information Life Cycle Concept With Digital Libraries........................214

Appendix 21. Creating the Magic of Information............................................................................214

Appendix 22. Study Panels and Group of Experts Memberships ....................................................214
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

iv 

Appendix 23. Panel One: Final Report on A Reformed NTIS Business Model for the 

Internet Age .......................................................................................................................... 214

Appendix 24. Panel Two: Final Report on Federal Agency Needs for Central Information 

Services and Information Management ................................................................................ 214

Appendix 25. Panel Three: Final Report on Citizen, Business, Lower Levels of 

Government, Library, and Other Needs for Public Information Products and Services....... 214

Appendix 26. Panel Four: Final Report on Renewed and Strengthened Partnerships 

Between the Public and Private Sectors for Public Information Dissemination................... 214

Appendix 27. Survey of Selected Federal Agency Policies, Programs and Practices Relating 

to Public Information Dissemination .................................................................................... 215

Appendix 28. Survey of the Public Information Needs of Disabled, Disadvantaged and 

Special Populations (Summary and Individual Association Responses).............................. 215

Appendix 29. Public Information Resources Maps......................................................................... 215

Appendix 30. European Commission Green Paper on Public Sector Information in the 

Information Society .............................................................................................................. 215

Appendix 31. A Bibliography of Government Information Dissemination Resources................... 215

Appendix 32. A Bibliography of National Information Policies..................................................... 216

Appendix 33. Index to a Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public 

Information Dissemination ................................................................................................... 216

Appendix 34. NCLIS Comprehensive Assessment Web Page Contents ........................................ 216

Volume 4. Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public Information 

Dissemination ............................................................................................................................... 216

Appendix 35. A Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public Information 

Dissemination ....................................................................................................................... 216

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Transforming Public Information Resources into a Strategic National Asset ......................... 5

Figure 2: Information Resources Map for Four Department of Labor Information Products............... 26
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

v 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Commission is indebted to many individuals and groups for the extraordinary contributions made 

in helping plan and executive this very ambitious and complex study. We apologize to anyone whom 

we may have inadvertently overlooked or credited improperly for their efforts on our behalf. 

First and foremost, the Commission owes a large debt of gratitude to the four panel chairs, and their 

respective panel members, who took on a very big task at a time with a very short deadline at a time 

when all of them had many other priorities to deal with. The four panel chairs are: 

• Peter Urbach, who chaired Panel One effort dealing with recommended reforms of the NTIS 

business model. Now retired, his many-faceted contributions to the library and information 

profession, in both the public and private sectors, gave him authoritative insights based on sound 

experience which both his panel members and the Commission valued highly. 

• Kurt Molholm, who chaired Panel Two addressing steps to strengthen agency sharing of 

information to both help achieve their own missions more effectively as well as to help their 

agencies serve their own constituencies and clienteles more effectively. He took time out from an 

extremely busy schedule in managing the Defense Technical Information Center and serving as 

chairman of CENDI, the consortium of scientific and technical information intensive agencies. 

• Miriam Drake, who chaired Panel Three reviewing actions to improve how the government 

disseminates its information to external groups, including private citizens, corporations, depository 

libraries, lower levels of government, academia, research institutions, and others. She brought to 

bear her experience as dean of libraries for Georgia Institute of Technology as well as a lifetime of 

leadership in the library and information communities, including the presidency of the Special 

Libraries Association, service on the Depository Library Council, and many key private sector 

assignments. 

• Wayne Kelley, who chaired Panel Four, reviewing how the public and private sectors could 

continue and improve their respective roles in the efficient and effective dissemination of 

government information. Although now retired, he has held key positions in both the public and 

private sectors, including a tour as the Superintendent of Documents in the Government Printing 

Office. 

The Panel Members who participated actively in their respective forums included the following: 

• Panel One Members: Ken Allen, Steve Arnold, Ernest (Gill) Baldwin, Mel Day, Mike Majcher. 

Steve Needle, Kent Smith, Tim Sprehe, Kendall Wiggin, and Jay Young. 

• Panel Two Members: Jay Alden, Owen Ambur, Jonda Byrd, Bonnie Carroll, Bruce Cox, Blane 

Dessy, T. C. Evans, Walter Finch, Patrice McDermott, Ray Mosley, Al Pesachowitz, George J. 

Roncaglia, John A. Shuler, Kent Smith, J. Timothy Sprehe, Susan Tarr, and Walter Warnick. 

• Panel Three Members: Prudence Adler, Reva Basch, Lewis Bellardo, Kevin Donovan, Sharon 

Hogan, Brewster Kahle, Barbie Keiser, Diane Kresh, Bernie Margolis, Jim McGinty, Barbara 

Peterson, Barbara Quint, Dale Stanley, Rick Weingarten, Freida Weise, and Gladys Ann Wells. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

vi 

• Panel Four Members: Mary Alice Baish, Francis Buckley, Anne Caputo, Blane Dessy, Dan 

Duncan, Wally Finch, Neal Gregory, Donald Hagen, Richard Kaser, Nancy Kranich, David 

LeDuc, Edwin Levine, Eric Massant, Peyton Neal, James Nelson, Molly Raphael, Franklin 

Reeder, and Roxanne Williams. 

Next, the Commission wishes to give a special thanks to our fourteen experts: Christopher Burns, 

Edward A. Fox, Robert M. Hayes, Donald Langenberg, Stuart Lynn, Deanna Marcum, Raymond T. 

Nimmer, Henry Perritt, Ron Plesser, William H. Price, Carol Risher, Thomas Susman, Paul Uhlir, and 

Paul Zurkowski. These individuals are among the Nation’s most distinguished leaders in their 

respective fields, including information law, information economics, public policy, publishing, 

information science and technology, librarianship, the pure sciences, the applied sciences, the 

humanities, and other fields. They reviewed the Panel reports and the Commission's final report to 

ensure that “technical” aspects of the Commission’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations were 

sound, feasible, and practical. We are grateful that these individuals took time out from their very busy 

schedules to share their expertise with the Commission. 

We also acknowledge the many individuals who called the Commission’s attention to prior studies, 

relevant articles in the literature, websites containing important information, and other resources, the 

existence of which might not otherwise have been known to study participants. There were almost too 

many volunteers who assisted the Commission in various aspects of its deliberations. Among those 

who made special contributions were Maggie Hansen and Blane Dessey at the Department of Justice 

Library. 

A number of individuals and organizations, including Christopher Burns and Lexis-Nexis, kindly 

granted the Commission copyright permission, and/or waived fees, in order for us to utilize their 

materials, including published articles and database materials, for purposes of the study. We appreciate 

these kindnesses. 

To the many stakeholder groups that participated in the study, we must also express a debt of gratitude 

since their participation helped to ensure that the Commission heard from all of the voices that needed 

to be heard. We are grateful for the thoughtful comments and participation of the library and 

information associations and societies, associations whose members comprised disabled, 

disadvantaged and special-needs populations, the public interest groups, the trade and industry groups, 

labor unions, universities and research institutions, federal interagency committees, practicing library 

and information professionals, and last but not least the federal agencies themselves, which 

participated in many ways, including responding to a Commission survey. While most study 

participants were in the United States, a few foreign individuals tracked the study’s developments and 

made contributions as well. 

Finally, a special acknowledgement must be made of the contributions of NCLIS consultants F. 

Woody Horton and Sarah T. Kadec who were the co-coordinators of the assessment, and NCLIS 

Deputy Director, Judith C. Russell. Their expertise and hard work contributed beyond measure to the 

success of this endeavor. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

vii 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A variety of acronyms and abbreviations are used is this report and its appendices as a short form for 

long or commonly used names and phrases. The first time a name or phrase is mentioned in the text, 

the acronym is provided in parentheses following the full name, e.g., the National Commission on 

Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). Subsequent references may use only the acronym. This 

table is provided to facilitate identification of acronyms and abbreviations since it may be difficult to 

locate the first use where the full name or phrase is provided. 

AALL American Association of Law Libraries 

AAMR American Association on Mental Retardation 

AAP American Association of Publishers 

AARP Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons 

ACE Americans Communicating Electronically 

ACRL Association of College Research Libraries 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

ADD Automatic Document Distribution 

AFFIRM Association for Federal Information Resources Management 

AIIP Association of Independent Information Professionals 

ALA American Library Association 

ALISE Association of Library and Information Science Education 

AMTD Automatic Magnetic Tape Distribution 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

AO or AOUSC Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

APDU Association of Public Data Users 

ARC Archival Research Catalog 

ARL Association of Research Libraries 

ARMA Association of Records Managers and Administrators 

ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency, Department of Defense 

ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange 

ASCLA Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies 

ASIS American Society for Information Science, now American Society for 

Information Science and Technology 

ASIST American Society for Information Science and Technology 

ATPA American Technology Preeminence Act 

CAB Current Awareness Bibliography 

CBD Commerce Business Daily 

CBO Congressional Budget Office 

CCSDS Consultative Committee on Space Data System 

CCIA Computer and Communications Industry Association 

CD-ROM Compact Disk-Read Only Memory 

CENDI A consortium of scientific and technical information intensive federal 

agencies, including Defense, Energy, EPA, NASA, NLM, NTIS, and others 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

viii 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CIC Consumer Information Center 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

CIRO Congressional Information Resources Office (proposed) 

CLB Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind 

CLIR Council on Library and Information Resources 

COPPA The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act 

COSATI Committee on Scientific and Technical Information 

COSLA Chief Officers of State Library Agencies 

CPIR Council on Public Information Resources (proposed) 

CRS Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress 

CSTB Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Academy of 

Sciences 

DOC Department of Commerce 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOL Department of Labor 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DTIC Defense Technical Information Center 

DVD Digital Video Disk 

E-FOIA Electronic Freedom of Information Act 

ECFS Electronic Comment Filing System 

EFT Electronic Funds Transfer 

EOP Executive Office of the President 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERA Electronic Records Archive 

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center 

ES Expert Systems 

ESA Employment Security Administration 

ETDC Energy Technology Data Center 

EU European Union 

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulations 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FDLP Federal Depository Library Program 

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee 

FILIS Federal Institute of Library and Information Science (proposed) 

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards 

FLICC Federal Library and Information Center Committee 

FMS Financial Management Service, Department of the Treasury 

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

FPC Federal Publishers Committee 

FTS Federal Telecommunications Standards 

FWF Federal WebMasters Forum 

FY Fiscal Year 

GAO General Accounting Office 

GILS Government Information Locator Service 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

ix 

GODORT Government Documents Roundtable of the American Library Association 

GPEA Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GPO Government Printing Office 

GSA General Services Administration 

GXML Government eXtensible Markup Language 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

HTML HyperText Markup Language 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

ICB Information Collection Budget 

ICPPS Interagency Council on Printing and Publications Services 

ICSP Interagency Committee on Statistical Policy 

ICSU International Council of Scientific Unions 

IDB Information Dissemination Budget 

IEA International Energy Agency 

IFLA International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions 

IIA Information Industry Association, now merged into the Software and 

Information Industry Association 

ILCM Information Life Cycle Manager software program (proposed) 

IMLS Institute of Museum and Library Services 

INIS International Nuclear Information System 

IRM Information Resources Management 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

ISI Institute for Scientific Information 

ISO Information Standards Organization 

IT Information Technology 

ITU International Telecommunications Union 

JIRO Judicial Information Resources Office (proposed) 

LC Library of Congress 

LSCA Library Services and Construction Act 

LSTA Library Services and Technology Act 

MIS Management Information Systems 

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

MLA Medical Library Association 

NAE National Academy of Engineering 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System, formerly the Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) 

NAILS National Archives Information Locator 

NAL National Agriculture Library 

NARA National Archives and Records Administration 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NASIRE National Association of State Information Resource Executives 

NBA National Braille Association 

NBII National Biological Information Infrastructure 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

x 

NCLIS National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

NDLTD Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations 

NFFE National Federation of Federal Employees 

NFIL National Forum on Information Literacy 

NIIAC National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council 

NISO National Information Standards Organization 

NIST National Information Standards 

NLE National Library of Education 

NLM National Library of Medicine 

NLS National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Library 

of Congress 

NOD National Organization on Disabilities 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPR National Performance Review 

NPRG National Partnership for Reinventing Government 

NRC National Research Council 

NSA National Security Agency 

NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

NSDL National Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology Education 

Digital Library, also called the National Science Digital Library 

NSF National Science Foundation 

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

NTIS National Technical Information Service 

NWS National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

OCLC OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. 

OCR Optical Character Recognition 

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget 

OIA Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Executive Office of the President 

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OSTI Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Department of Energy 

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President 

OTA Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress 

PDF Adobe Systems Acrobat Portable Document Format 

PEC Procurement Executives Council 

PIRA Public Information Resources Administration (proposed) 

PIRUC Public Information Resources Users Council (proposed) 

PITAC President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee 

PKI Public Key Infrastructure 

PLA Public Library Association 

PPA Permanent Public Availability 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PS/PS Public Sector/Private Sector 

PTO Patent and Trademark Office 

PUMS Public Microdata User Samples 

PURL Persistent Uniform Resource Locator 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

xi 

R&D Research and Development 

RDF Resource Description Framework 

ROI Return on Investment 

SDI Selective Dissemination of Information 

SDTS Spatial Data Transfer Standard 

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission 

SGML Standard Generalized Markup Language 

SHHHP Self-Help for Hard of Hearing People, National Center on Assistive 

Technologies 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification, not North American Industry Classification 

System 

SIIA Software and Information Industry Association 

SLA Special Libraries Association 

SRIM Selected Research in Microfiche 

SSA Social Security Administration 

STI Scientific and Technical Information 

STIE Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information 

STINET Scientific and Technical Information Network 

SuDocs Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office 

SuPICT Superintendent of Public Information and Communications Technologies 

(proposed) 

SuPIR Superintendent of Public Information Resources (proposed) 

TDI Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (former name) 

TIFF Tagged Image File Format 

TRAIL Technical Report Awareness Internet Links 

ULC Urban Libraries Council 

ULS Universal Licensing System 

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

URL Uniform Resource Locator 

URN Uniform Resource Name 

USC (or U.S.C.) United States Code 

USGS Geological Survey, Department of the Interior 

USDA Department of Agriculture 

XML eXtensible Markup Language 

Y2K Year 2000 

WWW World Wide Web 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

xii 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

xiii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It was a simple announcement on a summer day. It appeared to be a straightforward proposal to solve 

a serious problem. Constrained by a statutory requirement for self-funding and facing a new paradigm 

in information dissemination, the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) was failing. As 

federal agencies distributed reports at no cost on the World Wide Web—reports that formerly NTIS 

had distributed—NTIS was unable to collect revenue sufficient to cover its costs of cataloging and 

maintaining its collection. The proposal put forth in August 1999 by the Department of Commerce 

(where NTIS is organizationally located) was to close NTIS and move its collections and functions to 

the Library of Congress.1

The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) immediately recognized this 

proposal to be far more significant than it first appeared. Fundamental issues regarding how the 

government used, disseminated and valued its information resources were at stake. The Commission 

stepped forward and prepared a preliminary assessment of the proposed closure of NTIS, which it 

delivered to the President and Congress.2

 This report recommended a number of steps to keep NTIS 

operational, but it also stated that a much broader assessment of the underlying issues involved in 

public information dissemination throughout government was needed. 

A number of Congressional leaders in both the House of Representatives and the Senate urged NCLIS 

to prepare such a report; Senator John McCain, Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Democrat on the Senate 

Committee on Governmental Affairs, both sent letters to the Commission formally requesting a review 

of reforms needed for the federal government’s public information dissemination practices. This report 

is the response to those requests. 

A. THE ROLE OF NCLIS 

The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science is an independent agency in the 

Executive Branch, created by law (Public Law 91-345, 20 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) in 1970. Its statute calls 

for it to "advise the President and the Congress on the implementation of national policy" pertaining to 

the library and information needs of the people of the United States. 

Throughout its history, NCLIS has addressed government information issues. In 1998, at the request 

of the Government Printing Office (GPO), the Commission surveyed federal agencies to understand 

 

1

 U.S. Department of Commerce, "Commerce Secretary William M. Daly Announces Intention to Close National Technical 

Information Service," Press Release, Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, August 12, 1999; 

http://204.193.246.62/public.nsf/docs/FFF05791D63331D1852567CB00693643; and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

"Providing the American People Information for the 21st Century: The Commerce Department Proposes to Close NTIS and 

Ensure That People Can Receive Technical Information for Free Over the Internet," Fact Sheet, Washington, D.C.: 

Department of Commerce, no date; http://204.193.246.62/public.nsf/docs/EA7BD28117EEF74D852567CB006B7D20. 2

 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS): A Report to the President and the Congress, Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, March 16, 2000; http://www.nclis.gov/govt/ntis/presiden.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

xiv 

how the formats, mediums and standards these agencies employed were significantly changing as they 

moved from an era in which most government information took the form of ink-on-paper to a time 

when electronic information technology is increasingly used.3

When NCLIS received the requests from Senators McCain and Lieberman to perform a 

comprehensive assessment of public information dissemination, it started a number of actions. A study 

plan outline was produced and published. Individuals were recruited to form four study panels 

addressing focused aspects of the issue (the NTIS business model; federal agency needs for central 

information services; public needs for government information, and; partnerships between the public 

and private sectors for public information dissemination); each panel submitted a report on its topic. A 

group of experts was assembled; many of these individuals prepared White Papers in their subject 

specialty and each reviewed various documents as the project progressed. A number of past reports 

dealing with government information were reviewed and many were made available to the panel 

members, experts and interested members of the public. A web site devoted to the project was created 

as part of the NCLIS web site and numerous drafts and documents were made available electronically 

through that means.4

 The Commission met to review the findings, conclusions and recommendations 

that would comprise the assessment report. A public meeting, announced beforehand in the Federal 

Register, provided a members of the public and interest groups the opportunity to ask questions and 

state concerns regarding the NCLIS effort. The Commission provided a draft copy of the report to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and OMB further distributed the draft to other agencies. 

Throughout this process, NCLIS received statements in support of some findings, conclusions and 

recommendations and others in opposition. The Commission benefited greatly from the many 

comments received throughout the project and incorporated many, but not all, of the suggestions 

received. Nevertheless, this report represents the opinions and recommendations of the Commission, 

not of the current or former Administration or any of the stakeholders who participated in its 

development. 

B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Based on both its historical efforts and the extensive recent activities, the Commission confidently set 

forth a large number of findings and conclusions that describe the current state of government 

information. These observations are explained in detail in the full body of the report5

 and are 

summarized below. 

Public ownership of information created by the federal government is an essential right. It not only 

allows individuals to fulfill their civic responsibilities, but also contributes to an overall improvement 

in their quality of life. Current information technology not only brings with it expanded opportunities 

for using government information but also a number of difficulties, including adequacy of finding 

tools, technological incompatibilities, and sometimes just the overwhelming amount of information. 

 

3

 Westat, Inc., Report on the Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products, prepared under a contract issued 

by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science and commissioned by the Government Printing Office, 

March 1999; http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/nclisassessment/report.html.

4

 The Assessment web page is http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 5

 The report is published in 4 volumes. Volume 1: A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination; 

Volume 2: Legislative and Regulatory Proposals; Volume 3: Supplementary Reference Materials; and Volume 4: 

Compilation of Recent Statues Relating to Public Information Dissemination. These volumes are available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol1.pdf, http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol2.pdf, 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol3.pdf, and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol4.pdf, respectively. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

xv 

Government agencies are trying to use the World Wide Web to ensure availability of information, and 

emerging efforts in development of indexing tools and web portals offer some hope. However, not all 

needed information is available on the Internet nor do users of public information necessarily have the 

professional skills to use what is available in any format. Also, government information made 

available electronically can disappear as quickly as it has appeared. No policy is in place for long term 

or permanent public access to web-based public information. 

Special populations, especially individuals with disabilities, but also those who, for whatever reason, 

find it difficult to use computers and computer networks, exist throughout the nation. Such populations 

clearly can benefit from information technology but special efforts need to be taken to guarantee the 

availability to them of appropriate information technology and government information content. 

The federal government has a critical role in formulating and overseeing public information 

dissemination policy. Hundreds of laws establish the requirement and authority of agencies to 

disseminate public information, but there is little distinction made between “passive dissemination” 

and “proactive dissemination.” Moreover, the authority of agencies differs widely in terms of how 

broadly they are permitted to disseminate information to the public. It is evident that there are costs 

involved in managing and disseminating public information resources, but the manner of paying these 

costs is inconsistent and, at times, invisible across government. There are existing central service 

agencies, such as GPO, NTIS and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), who, 

in partnership with individual agencies, play a crucial role in information dissemination. However, 

there is no effective enforcement mechanism to use when these partnerships fail. 

There will always remain a strong need for central information service agencies, but these agencies 

need new business models that reflect the realities of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Overlap 

and competition among these agencies is unnecessary and wasteful. There are efforts to improve 

coordination—for example, through interagency committees—and these efforts should be continued 

and strengthened. 

Everything that has been learned about problems and opportunities affecting federal government 

information is likely to apply to public information at the state and local government levels. Such 

information is just as important to the people as is federal government information. However, the 

inconsistencies and incompatibilities among programs at the different levels of government need to be 

eliminated. 

The private sector plays a key role in further distributing public information and enhancing its value. 

This group consists of commercial firms as well as a host of libraries and not-for-profit organizations. 

Both the for-profit and the not-for-profit sectors need to strengthen their partnership arrangements 

with government. 

The approach the United States takes with regard to public information is a source of great strength 

and the approach should be widely promoted to all nations around the world. 

C. RECOMMENDATIONS 

Based on the findings and conclusions, the Commission is setting forth thirty-six recommendations. 

These recommendations are stated more fully and discussed in the main body of the report. The list 

that follows is intentionally designed to be a shorthand reference and certainly does not capture the 

subtlety or complexity that the full recommendation contains. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

xvi 

Strategic Recommendations

1. Adopt the national goal that public information is a strategic resource. 

2. Establish the Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA). 

3. Include broad, explicit public information dissemination authority in all agencies’ missions. 

4. Implement an Information Dissemination Budget. 

5. Enact “The Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001.” 

6. Establish the Congressional Information Resources Office (CIRO). 

7. Establish the Judicial Information Resources Office (JIRO). 

8. Extend key provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act to the Legislative and Judicial Branches. 

9. Encourage state, local, and tribal governments to adopt comparable policies and programs for their 

public information resources. 

10. Retain, temporarily, the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) in the Commerce 

Department. 

11. Provide funding for the public good functions of NTIS and other comparable information service 

agencies. 

12. Update the NTIS business model. 

13. Partner with the private sector, both for–profit and not for-profit, to perform public information 

disseminations functions. 

14. Remove barriers to public information for individuals with disabilities and for other special 

populations. 

15. Coordinate the information dissemination activities among the Legislative, Judicial and Executive 

Branches. 

16. Improve training of librarians and other information professionals to better assist users of public 

information. 

Other Recommendations

17. Implement recommendations regarding NTIS in the Commerce Department. 

18. Improve Congressional oversight of public information dissemination laws. 

19. Review and harmonize all laws that deal with public information resources. 

20. Strengthen cooperative efforts to promote public information sharing. 

21. Improve “Government Information Life-Cycle Planning and Management.” 

22. Modernize current awareness systems for public information. 

23. Make consistent federal identifiers for information across all agencies. 

24. Harmonize information identifiers at all levels of government—federal, state, local and tribal. 

25. Evaluate pre-electronic government information for digital conversion. 

26. Develop guidelines regarding the availability of public information by branch and level of 

government. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

xvii 

27. Develop a comprehensive inventory and database of public information resources. 

28. Specify the metadata by which agencies classify records prior to archival retention or disposal. 

29. Partner broadly, in and outside government, to ensure permanent public availability of public 

information resources. 

30. Identify the public’s most critical unmet requirements for public information resources. 

31. Identify the federal government’s most critical requirement for technologies to manage public 

information resources. 

32. Involve the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the effective management of scientific and 

technical information. 

33. Monitor cooperation between PIRA and the National Archives and Records Administration. 

34. Require that data elements set forth in the Government Paperwork Elimination Act be reported in 

XML, and review the impact of this requirement regularly. 

35. Ensure the availability of a trained federal workforce with skills in Internet Age technologies. 

36. Advance the recommendations of this Assessment report to other nations worldwide. 

It should be emphasized that the foregoing recommendations are just that, recommendations. The 

Commission believes that implementation of these recommendations will vastly improve the condition 

of government information dissemination in the United States, but it also recognizes that others have 

different views. It is up to the President and Congress, as the recipients of this report, to determine 

whether and to what extent these recommendations should be implemented. The Commission stands 

ready to fulfill its statutory obligation to provide advice to the President and Congress in whatever way 

may be helpful. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

xviii 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-1 

VOLUME 1. A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC 

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

A. THE ROLE OF NCLIS 

The United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) is an 

independent agency charged by its enabling legislation (Public Law 91-345) to take a leadership 

position on matters pertaining to the library and information needs of the nation. Specifically, 20 

U.S.C. 1504(a)(1) says that the Commission shall "advise the President and the Congress on the 

implementation of national policy by such statements, presentations, and reports as it deems 

appropriate." 

In fulfillment of that statutory mandate, the Commission throughout its 30-year history has had an 

abiding interest and concern for studying ways the government can improve its public information 

dissemination practices. However, in the last three years, largely because of the intensified interest in 

the federal government's use of the World Wide Web and the Internet as the preferred medium for 

distributing public information to citizens and other elements of society, the Commission has focused 

squarely in three closely related studies, conducted sequentially, on policy, management, standards, 

accessibility, and other major issues and concerns that have arisen as a result of this shift in access and 

delivery channels from pre-Internet modes such as ink-on-paper, microfiche, and CD-ROM or DVD, 

to World Wide Web and Internet modes. 

Four years ago, in 1996, the Government Printing Office was asked by the Congress to investigate the 

increasing proliferation of formats, mediums, platforms, and protocols being utilized by federal 

agencies to disseminate public information products. The GPO turned to NCLIS to assist in 

undertaking the task. NCLIS engaged Westat, Inc., a survey research firm, to survey a sample of over 

300 products in a cross section of 24 different agencies in all three branches. A final report was 

published on this first of the three studies on March 30, 1999.6

Then in August 1999, after consulting with Department of Commerce officials and members of both 

the Senate and House Committees holding jurisdiction over science and technology issues, and very 

soon after the announcement by Commerce of it intention to close the National Technical Information 

Service (NTIS) and shift its paper, microfiche, digital archives, and bibliographic database to the 

Library of Congress, the Commission launched a second major study, this time focused primarily on 

NTIS. A final report on this second of the three studies was published in March 2000.7

In both the 1996 GPO-requested study, and the follow-on 1999 NTIS study, the Commission observed 

that both the issues and concerns surrounding the proliferation of electronic formats for disseminating 

 

6

 Westat, Inc., Report on the Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products, prepared under a contract issued 

by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science and commissioned by the Government Printing Office, 

March 1999; http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/nclisassessment/report.html.

7

 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS): A Report to the President and the Congress, Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, March 16, 2000; http://www.nclis.gov/govt/ntis/presiden.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-2 

government information to the public, and the issues and concerns surrounding the proposed transfer 

of the functions, programs, and resources of NTIS to the Library of Congress, should not be viewed as 

isolated events. Rather, the Commission concluded that those issues were both a part of the broader 

fabric of an even larger question—how the government should reform its laws, policies, programs, and 

practices for disseminating information to the public in the Internet Age. 

The Commission therefore enthusiastically welcomed the requests by both Senator John McCain and 

Senator Joseph Lieberman to undertake this broader study. Readers should keep this larger context in 

mind in reviewing the findings and recommendations contained herein, as well as the admonition of 

the Congressional committees requesting the study that the final report should represent an NCLIS 

position, developed as a result of its statutory mandates, findings from earlier studies, and 

independently gathered facts and opinions. NCLIS was specifically directed in its discussions with 

Congressional staff neither to attempt to necessarily seek a consensus on every recommendation, nor 

to "pull punches" simply because a recommendation might appear to be politically difficult. Therefore, 

this report represents the opinions and recommendations of the Commission in its statutory role as an 

advisor to the Congress. 

This report, including its legislative recommendations, reflects only the views of the Commission. The 

report does not necessarily reflect the views of the current, or former, Administration or any other 

agency. Because the report's legislative recommendations address the activities and authority of 

agencies throughout the Executive Branch and it proposes the establishment by Congress of a new 

agency with government-wide authority, the Commission provided a draft of the report to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and comment in December 2000. With the 

concurrence of the Commission, OMB, in turn, circulated the draft to other agencies for their review 

and comment. OMB informed NCLIS in January 2001 that a number of agencies raised significant 

concerns about the draft report and, in particular, disagreed with its legislative recommendations. Due 

to the requests the Commission received from Congress asking that the report be submitted for its 

consideration, the Commission has not had an opportunity to discuss these concerns with the other 

agencies and, therefore, this report does not seek to respond to those concerns. The Commission will 

continue to work with other agencies on these issues in the coming months. 

Similarly, although a wide variety of stakeholders were encouraged to participate in the development 

of this report and their comments were extremely useful to the Commission, these recommendations 

do not necessarily represent a consensus of stakeholders. 

In its 1975 publication entitled Toward a National Program for Library and Information Services: 

Goals for Action, the Commission offered a long-range program for the development of an integrated 

nationwide network of library and information services. The following statement appears in that 

landmark document: 

The Commission's current goal is to develop a plan for a flexible network of 

information services to meet the immediate and foreseeable information requirements 

of the greatest possible number of people. The Commission will therefore continue to 

concentrate its efforts in the years ahead on this ideal: 

To eventually provide every individual in the United States with equal opportunity of 

access to that part of the total information resource which will satisfy the individual's 

educational, working, cultural and leisure-time needs and interests, regardless of the 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-3 

individual's location, social or physical condition or level of intellectual 

achievement.

8

 [emphasis added] 

In working toward the attainment of this goal, the Commission recommends in this report programs 

and enabling federal legislation that are based on existing programs for the dissemination of public 

information resources, as well as new programs as appropriate and necessary. One such 

recommendation is that the United States Government formally recognize and affirm the concept that 

public information is a strategic national resource.9

 The success of such a goal, and of these 

recommendations, is dependent on the acceptance and full support of the Congress, the 

Administration, the library profession, the information community—both public and private—and, 

most importantly, the people of the United States. 

 

8

 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Toward a National Program for Library and Information 

Services: Goals for Action, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975, page xi. 

9

 Recognition of public information as a strategic national asset does not imply exploitation of that asset to generate revenue 

for the government, like the sale of lumber or mineral rights on federal land. On the contrary, it must result in optimizing 

timely and permanent public access to the information for its owners, the people of the United States. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-4 

B. BACKGROUND 

THE CENTRAL ISSUE 

Public sector information, or simply public information, has very rapidly become in the span of just 

the last few years one of the most critical strategic assets possessed by every nation state, on a par with 

national wealth, land, and capital. The Internet and the World Wide Web are the main technological 

reason, but there have been a number of other factors at play as well. Public sector information has 

always played a very important role in the political, economic, and social affairs of every country. Yet 

the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web have dramatically escalated the importance of 

public information because of the power of the Internet to tremendously increase its availability and 

accessibility in a great variety of different electronic formats and mediums. It has been argued, 

"information content is to wealth generation in the Internet Age as raw materials were to wealth 

generation in the Industrial Age."10

The central challenge of this report is to recommend to the President and the 

Congress a series of steps to maximize the diffusion of the government's 

data, information, and knowledge resources (sometimes referred to as 

"intellectual capital") to all sectors of society, including individual citizens, and 

to empower all of those sectors and individuals to utilize that knowledge 

effectively and efficiently in the pursuit of their respective personal, family, 

career, business, institutional, or other goals and objectives. In short, to 

recommend steps to treat public information resources as a strategic national 

asset. 

A very high percentage of this nation's knowledge resources, or intellectual capital, is invested in its 

government data, document, and literature assets, but those assets are a very long ways, as yet, from 

being conveniently, cost-effectively, and equitably available and accessible to all sectors of American 

society despite impressive initiatives that have been taken in recent years. The government’s 

knowledge assets are currently strewn across broad physical and electronic landscapes of tens of 

thousands of websites and millions of web pages, hundreds of thousands of electronic databases, 

untold numbers of paper and microform document collections, and in countless files, records 

depositories, clearinghouses, and archives across the country and even abroad. 

From a purely economic and efficiency standpoint, the government is certainly correct in making the 

case that posting an increasing percentage of its public information on agency websites has shifted the 

cost of access to the information more directly to the individual users who benefit from the 

information, as opposed to the taxpayers as a whole (although the operation and administration of the 

websites are funded with tax dollars). This is, in principle, a good thing. However, offsetting this 

positive is a negative. There is now so much electronic information to wade through that is difficult to 

find what is relevant and useful. As a result, there is an even greater need for a single, central 

comprehensive and authoritative inventory and database of public information resources and for more 

proactive agency dissemination of public information. 

 

10 Paul G. Zurkowski, "Creating the Magic of Information," available as Appendix 21 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen21.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-5 

Certainly the digital library initiatives offer one of the most promising avenues because the digital 

library concept does entail collection of electronic information resources that are enhanced with 

organization, quality control, help for searching and browsing, support of particular targeted user 

communities, mechanisms for handling electronic publishing, and other capabilities. 

The central challenge of this report is to recommend to the President and the Congress, as well as the 

Judiciary, a series of steps to maximize the diffusion of the government's data, information, and 

knowledge resources (sometimes referred to as "intellectual capital") to all sectors of society, 

including individual citizens, and to empower all of those sectors and individuals to utilize that 

knowledge effectively and efficiently in the pursuit of their respective personal, family, career, 

business, institutional, or other goals and objectives. In short, to recommend steps to treat public 

information resources as a strategic national asset. This is a far more daunting challenge than just 

strengthening the dissemination of public information. 

Figure 1. Transforming Public Information Resources into a Strategic National Asset 

Figure 1 graphically depicts as a schematic "equation" the elements necessary to transform public 

information resources into a strategic national asset, managed for the benefit of the people. Achieving 

the goal of treating public information as a strategic national asset can be viewed as a combination of a 

number of equations elements, all of which have a role to play: first accessing information, to which is 

added proactive dissemination of information, while subtracting certain information that is statutorily 

protected so that it is safeguarded, and finally ensuring that users are adequately trained to search, 

 + 

 THE NATIONAL GOAL THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARIES 

 – = = 

 + 

* National Security, FOIA Exemptions, Privacy, etc. 

Enhanced Access to 

Public Information 

Expanded Education & 

Training for Public 

Computer & 

Information Literacy 

Proactive 

Dissemination of Public 

Information 

Government 

Information 

Legitimately Restricted 

From Public 

Disclosure* 

Public Information 

As A 

Strategic National Resource 

Ordinary Citizens 

Disabled & Disadvantaged Persons 

Business & Industry 

Academic & Research Institutions 

Federal, State, Local & Tribal 

Governments 

Transforming Public Information Resources Into 

A Strategic National Asset
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-6 

retrieve and evaluate the information, both from the point of view of physical access (computer 

literacy) and intellectual access (information literacy). 

Thirty eight years ago in his preface to a Report of the President’s Science Advisory Committee 

chaired by Jerome Wiesner, "Science, government, and Information," President John Kennedy said 

"One of the major opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of our national scientific and technical 

effort and the efficiency of government management of research and development lies in the 

improvement of our ability to communicate information about current research efforts and the results 

of past efforts." The very first paragraph of this same report begins "Transfer of information is an 

inseparable part of research and development. All those concerned with research and development – 

individual scientists and engineers, industrial and academic research establishments, technical 

societies, government agencies – must accept responsibility for the transfer of information in the same 

degree and spirit that they accept responsibility for research and development itself."11

Twelve years ago the landmark Office of Technology Assessment report Informing the Nation raised 

six broad policy questions in connection with reform initiatives. The answers to these questions are as 

relevant to a careful consideration of the reform initiatives contemplated in this report today as they 

were by the reform initiatives being addressed by the Technology Assessment Board of the 100th

Congress, then chaired by Morris K. Udall and Ted Stevens: 

• Congressional commitment to public access to federal information. 

• The need for revision of government-wide information dissemination policy—particularly 

regarding cost-effectiveness. 

• The role of the private sector. 

• Electronic vs. paper formats. 

• The need for clarification of institutional roles and responsibilities. 

• Improvements in information dissemination management.12

In 1992, the participants in the interagency conferences on public access to government information, 

known as the Solomons conferences, created a policy framework for public access to electronic 

government information. The guiding principle of that policy framework is: 

Agencies of the federal government collect, produce, manipulate, evaluate, maintain, 

distribute, publish, and archive vast amounts of data, which represents a valuable 

national resource that belongs to the people. Some of this is subject to limitations on 

dissemination, ranging from national security classification through FOIA 

exemptions. However, it is in the best interest of the country and the responsibility of 

these federal agencies to ensure the availability of the remaining government 

information to the public in a useful and cost-effective manner. 

 

11 U.S. President's Science Advisory Committee, Science, Government, and Information: The Responsibilities of the 

Technical Community and the Government in the Transfer of Information, A Report of the President’s Science Advisory 

Committee, Washington, DC: The White House (January 10, 1963), Washington, DC: GPO, 1963, page 1. 

12 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Informing the Nation: Federal Information Dissemination in an 

Electronic Age, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1988), Chapter 11, "Federal Information Dissemination 

Policy in an Electronic Age." 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-7 

Guidelines: 

• The agency's mission should be framed as broadly as possible. It should enable rather than 

discourage dissemination. 

• Agencies should follow the principle that federal data cannot be copyrighted. 

• When defining an approach, FOIA should be interpreted to include all information 

regardless of form or media.13

The government itself acknowledges through OMB Circular A-130, "While millions of information 

users in the public may be affected by the agency's action, only a handful may have direct contact with 

the agency's own information dissemination products."14

The fundamental basis for public access to government information is found in Title 17 of the U.S. 

Code, which specifically prohibits copyright of federal information.15 This is augmented by other 

laws, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Electronic Freedom of Information Act 

(E-FOIA), the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Hundreds of 

other federal laws that have some provision or another for disseminating government information to 

the public or providing public access for one or more of the following purposes: 

• Publicize a citizen entitlement and spell out the procedures that need to be following to apply for a 

tangible government public benefit or service. 

• Publicize opportunities for the private sector to do business with, or for, the federal government, 

either domestically in the U.S. or abroad, or both. 

• Publicize and disseminate the results of government's performance and operations through audits, 

inspections, studies, opinions, decisions taken, and so forth. 

• Provide for intergovernmental or interagency information interchange. 

• Provide a broad legal basis for requesting public access to government information, identifying 

specific exceptions and exemptions, such as occurs in the Freedom of Information Act and the 

Privacy Act, or specifically exempting from disclosure large bodies of government information 

holdings such as information classified for reasons of national security. 

However, none of these existing laws provides a rationale and statutory basis for the positive, broad 

diffusion, and the wide-spread utilization, of the government's knowledge assets by individual 

Americans, both advantaged and disadvantaged, to help them cope with their daily problems, to 

enlighten and educate them so that they are better informed citizens and more empowered individuals, 

and to point the way to how the government's vast knowledge treasures can enhance the quality of 

their lives and the wisdom of their decisions.16

 

13 J. Timothy Sprehe, "Issues in Public Access: The Solomons Conferences," Government Publications Review, Vol. 20 

(1993), page 269. 

14 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key 

Sections," OMB Circular A-130, Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget, November 30, 2000; 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a130/a130appendix_iv.html. 15 The prohibition of copyright for federal government information is contained in Title 17 U.S. C. 105: "Copyright 

protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is 

not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." 

16 The one possible exception is 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19, the statute authorizing the Federal Depository Library Program 

(FDLP); however, the lack of agency compliance and the absence of substantial consequences for failure to comply have 

limited the effectiveness of this statute. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-8 

WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DOING 

In 1998 the European Commission issued its report entitled Public Sector Information: A Key 

Resource For Europe; Green Paper on Public Sector Information in the Information Society.

17 In its 

report the European Union said: 

Public sector information plays a fundamental role in the proper functioning of the 

internal market and the free circulation of goods, services and people. Without userfriendly and readily available administrative, legislative, financial or other public 

information, economic actors cannot make fully informed decisions. 

Public information in Europe is often fragmented and dispersed and so in many 

instances it is less clear and intended. This situation is mainly due to differing national 

legislation on the ways information can be accessed and exploited, and to various 

practices which hamper the availability of the data. The issue at stake is not that 

Member States should produce more information, but that the information, which is 

already available to the public, should be clearer and more accessible to potential 

users.18

In 1999 UNESCO said virtually the same thing about the role of public authorities in access to 

information: 

While industry and business are principally responsible for providing the 

infrastructure for access to information resources, governments and the civil society 

have a responsibility to make information considered as a "global public good" 

universally available for educational, cultural and social needs. The challenge is to 

define the concepts of public domain and universal access in a global context to 

promote the common public welfare while encouraging private initiative and 

protecting rightful economic interests.19

On November 30, 1999, the new UNESCO Director-General, Koichiro Matsuura, at the Opening 

Session of the World Summit of Regulators conference (with the theme "Internet and the New 

Services") stressed that the international community must make all efforts in order to ensure that 

information in the public domain is an essential element of the global common good, and must be 

promoted and protected. 

In the United Kingdom, the Central IT Unit of the Minister of State has recently issued a report 

entitled E-Government: A Strategic Framework for Public Services in the Information Age. This report 

states as a fundamental premise: "The government's knowledge and information are valuable 

resources."20 The report goes on to say: 

 

17 European Commission, Public Sector Information: A Key Resource For Europe, Green Paper on Public Sector Information 

in the Information Society (COM(98)585final, adopted on 20 January 1999). Excerpts are available as Appendix 30 in 

Volume 3 of this report and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen30.pdf. The complete Green Paper is 

available at http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/docs/policy/docs/COM(98)585/gp-intro.html. 18 Ibid. 

19 "INFOethics 2000: Right to Universal Access to Information in the Twenty-first Century," UNISIST Newsletter, Vol. 27, 

No. 2, 1999 (Paris: UNESCO Information and Informatics Division), pages 4-5. 

20 United Kingdom, Minister of State, E-Government: A Strategic Framework for Public Services in the Information Age, 

Modernizing Government, London: Central IT Unit, 2000, page 2; http://www.iagchampions.gov.uk/Strategy.htm.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-9 

The public sector needs to move towards managing the information it holds as a 

corporate resource to benefit citizens and business and to improve the effectiveness 

and efficiency of government itself. This will require 

• Definition and adoption by public sector bodies of corporate standards for data entities 

that are common across the public sector; for example, citizen name and address. CITU 

will publish these in the interoperability framework and will monitor their adoption 

• Definition and adoption by public sector bodies of common meanings for common data 

descriptions, so that information accessed by public servants or the public can be 

understood and used effectively 

• A framework for departments and agencies to implement electronic records management 

systems 

• A common policy of the use of metadata.21

Finally, Canadian international trade and investment lawyer and legal specialist, writing recently in an 

international journal to an audience of librarians and information professionals on the subject of the 

relationship between information and world trade, had this to say: 

It seems to me that there is a particular role for librarians to play as well, and not just 

as the defenders of public libraries, although without your determined intervention I 

fear the era of such public institutions, which as you know began only a little over a 

century ago, will not survive very much longer. But there is another and equally 

important service you can provide which would be to provide effective public access 

to the complex, obscure, and often secretive reports, submissions, studies, and 

negotiating texts which comprise the record of contemporary trade negotiations and 

dispute resolutions. There is a great need to find ways to expose information that too 

often has been shrouded from public view.22

THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES 

In the United States, there is a somewhat parallel situation with federal government information in 

other countries, but with important differences. That is, government information is fragmented, 

dispersed, compartmentalized, and unfocused among hundreds of federal agencies. It has been created, 

and it is being handled and stored in hundreds of different formats and mediums, including ink-onpaper, microfiche, CD-ROM or DVD, and online electronic modes. It is organized, classified, and 

cataloged in many different forms, including statistical or numeric data, textual data, graphical data, 

geospatial data, audio and visual data, and so on. Many different bibliographic and metadata systems, 

sometimes inconsistent and incompatible, are being used to identify data elements such as author, 

subject, title, location, and so on. In addition, dozens of different hardware, software, systems, and 

network platforms and protocols are being utilized to handle and communicate the information 

between networks and systems, sometimes subject to proprietary restrictions, but without the 

discipline of utilizing standards and guidelines. 

Moreover, in the United States, unlike much of the rest of the world, there is a strong dichotomy 

between the public information resources objectives and perspectives of the federal mission agencies, 

 

21 Ibid., page 21. 

22 Steven Shrybman, "Information, Commodification, and the World Trade Organization," IFLA Journal, Vol. 26, no. 5/6 

(2000), page 361. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-10 

on the one hand, and the federal agencies with government-wide information services, support and 

management roles on the other. In Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa there is a much greater 

cohesion between elements of the government, especially in the economic sphere, but in the United 

States, the mission agencies are primarily enjoined by statute to respond to their respective sector or 

mission interests (e.g., environment, energy, space, defense, etc.). As a result, they are beholden 

primarily to the constituencies comprising those sectors. The President and the Congress have made it 

crystal clear that if federal agencies stray very far from their mandated missions, they do so at their 

own peril. Only the central information service agencies, the major statistical agencies, and the 

national libraries serve the interests of the public at large, as well as the interests of individual mission 

agencies. 

There is also the dimension of institutional obsolescence. In the words of one of the Commission's 

advisory experts, Chancellor Donald Langenberg of the University of Maryland: 

The designs, configurations, and functions of the Library of Congress, the 

Government Printing Office, and the Superintendent of Documents, were based on the 

dominant information technology of the second half of the previous millennium, not 

that of the current millennium. Therein lies a huge challenge for our federal 

government (not to mention our state and local governments). One of the fundamental 

differences between the old and the new information technologies is that the former 

lends itself to centralization of information-related functions, while the latter is 

intrinsically decentralized. Compare big central libraries, printing plants, and 

bookstores and warehouses with ubiquitous desktop and laptop computers linked to 

servers in closets all over the globe. In the old technology, it's the nodes that matter 

most; in the new, it's the network linking the nodes. One should expect to see this 

fundamental difference reflected in the organizational and functional structure of an 

evolving federal public information dissemination system. [emphasis added] 

"Conceptual obsolescence" is a closely related dimension. Certain key ideas that are relevant to this 

report need to be reexamined and redefined for the Internet Age, such as access, dissemination, 

authentication, preservation, depository, publication, document, and library. 

As Julia Wallace asks in her recent article entitled "Why Government Information?" in DttP: 

What, after all, is a "collection" when we are talking about material on the web? What 

is the difference between the electronic collection and just everything that is out there 

on the web, from government bodies? And, maybe most important for us, what is the 

role of depository libraries in providing access to the "collection", when in the ideal 

online world all of this information is freely and easily available to everyone, 

everywhere?23

In its report Transforming Access to Government Through Information Technology, the first finding of 

the Panel on Transforming Government was that: 

Major technological barriers prevent citizens from easily accessing government 

information resources that are vital to their well-being. Today government information 

is often unavailable, inadequate, out of date, and needlessly complicated. ... The 

government stores large amounts of important information. However, finding that 

information in the government’s many databases is difficult, and correlating the 

 

23 Julia F. Wallace, "Why Government Information?" DttP: Documents to the People, Vol. 28, no. 1 (Spring 2000), page 18. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-11 

meaning of findings from a number of inconsistently defined databases requires deep 

knowledge of the existence, contents, and management schemes of those databases. 24

The Commission agrees with the Panel, and contends that a number of Executive, Legislative, and 

Judicial actions must be taken to enable what Chancellor Langenberg called the "federal public 

information system," or perhaps more technically the "Federal Information Infrastructure" concept to 

take its place in a meaningful way as a cornerstone in the emerging National Information 

Infrastructure, including: 

1. Statutory reforms to strengthen the several existing laws that govern the way the federal 

government is organized for public information resources management, and a major new 

legislative initiative, the Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001, providing for the 

creation of a Public Information Resources Administration with overall focal policy leadership 

and oversight responsibility for the availability of and accessibility to public sector information, 

electronic publishing of public information, and public information resources management; public 

information resources planning, management, and dissemination is elevated to the status of a 

major new government-wide mission. 

2. Important reforms in the way key federal laws are written, especially the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, and corresponding Executive Branch guidance, notably OMB Circular A-130, to take 

into account the shift from ink-on-paper and other pre-electronic formats and mediums such as 

microforms and CD-ROM or DVD, to Internet formats and mediums, and to give "co-equal" 

priority to both controlling the paperwork burden on the American public through the Information 

Collection Budget mechanism, but also recommending an Information Dissemination Budget

(IDB) concept as a way to emphasize the need for agencies to budget for more pro-actively 

disseminating their information resources to the public, not just passively providing access to 

those resources. 

3. Major realignments in the roles and organizational location, and the consolidation and 

harmonization of the dispersed, fragmented, compartmentalized, unfocused missions and 

functions of key agencies with government-wide public information services and information 

management missions and functions, including the Government Printing Office (GPO), the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), as well as relocation of responsibility for specific 

programs such as the Government Information Locator Service (GILS). 

4. Providing a statutory basis for, and institutionalizing three key public information management 

concepts: permanent public availability, preservation and authentication of government 

information; and harmonizing the former two concepts with a fourth concept already statutorily 

defined—permanent records retention. 

5. "Fine tuning" adjustments in the rules, regulations, standards, guidelines, procedures, and systems 

relating to individual agency, interagency, and intergovernmental information interchange, 

sharing, and standards development, including technical standards such as the use of XML 

(eXtensible Markup Language) and PURLs (Persistent Uniform Resource Locator Standard). 

 

24 U.S. Executive Office of the President, National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and 

Development, Transforming Access to Government Information Through Information Technology, report of the President's 

Information Technology Advisory Committee, Panel on Transforming Government, Washington, DC: National Coordination 

Office for Information Technology Research and Development, August 31, 2000, page 4; available at 

http://www.itrd.gov/ac/transform13x.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-12 

THE PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE FIXED 

Having highlighted the central issue in the preceding section, and discussed the approaches being 

taken being taken in both foreign countries and the U.S., the next question is: What are the problems 

that need to be fixed in order to realize the vision of transforming public sector information into a 

strategic national asset? Here is a succinct list. The Findings and Conclusions sections below explain 

why these are problems, and why they are relevant based on the Commission’s research and 

investigations. The Recommendations section details who should solve the problems, how they should 

solve them, and in some cases even where and when they could be solved (meaning in what arenas 

such as executive or legislative or judicial, or some permutation thereof, using what kind of enabling 

instrumentality such as a law or executive order policy statement, and whether in the short, mid, or 

long range). 

Problems that can be fixed by the federal government

1. Despite the fact that the United States Government is the world’s biggest producer of information, 

the government does not treat its data, information, and knowledge holdings as a strategic national 

asset on a par with its human resources, its financial resources, its physical resources, and its 

natural resources.25

2. Access tools and resources in place for finding and obtaining public information are still a very 

long ways from enabling citizens to search for and retrieve public information in a simple, costeffective, reliable, and convenient manner. 

3. Some Federal agencies tend to equate "passive access" with "proactive dissemination," in the 

sense that once they post an electronic document to their websites, they tend to believe that they 

are under no, or very little further obligation to help people know about what information 

government is producing, and how to obtain the information they need; but passive access is 

essentially a one-way, producer-to-user approach, whereas the knowledge diffusion, proactive 

dissemination model that is needed substitutes an interactive, two-way approach to 

communicating. "[Each] agency's mission should be framed as broadly as possible. It should 

enable rather than discourage dissemination."26

4. Public information is not permanently publicly available, and there is no statutory provision 

making its permanent availability mandatory. Some public information that is posted to agency 

websites disappears within days or weeks. 

5. Public information cannot be easily and reliably authenticated. Oftentimes viewers of electronic 

documents do not know whether they are looking at an official version of a document or not. 

6. Public information is not always being preserved to safeguard against the obsolescence of the 

formats and/or mediums in which the products are created and stored. 

7. Disabled, disadvantaged, and other special populations, notwithstanding recent commendable 

statutes such as Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, still do not have all the special tools they 

need to search for and retrieve public information in a way that compensates for their disabilities 

and special requirements. 

8. The low level of computer and information literacy remains a formidable barrier that is 

exacerbating the Digital Divide. Substantial government investments and other initiatives are 

 

25 Recognition of public information as a strategic national asset does not imply exploitation of that asset to generate revenue 

for the government, like the sale of lumber or mineral rights on federal land. On the contrary, it must result in optimizing 

timely and permanent public access to the information for its owners, the people of the United States. 

26 J. Timothy Sprehe, op. cit., page 269. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-13 

needed to close that gap and supplement private sector training investments, so that citizens can 

exploit public information to the fullest extent. 

9. The government does not recognize that certain expenses incurred by the central information 

service agencies such as GPO, NTIS, and NARA associated with preparing, verifying, and 

validating mission agency originated information products are inherently governmental functions 

and responsibilities, the financing of which should be through appropriated funds, not through the 

sale of public information, overhead or similar approaches. 

10. The government does not recognize that the costs of disseminating government information to the 

public are a necessary and integral cost of the agency’s doing business, and the expenses of such 

dissemination programs should be financed through the normal agency budget process, not 

through overhead accounts or the sale of public information. 

11. The government has no budgetary technique for more clearly identifying and making visible 

individual agency and aggregate costs for their public information dissemination programs. 

12. Federal agencies are confused and burdened by conflicting and inconsistent statutory provisions 

and definitions that attempt to distinguish between permanent official record materials and nonrecord materials such as library reference materials; the government information life cycle concept 

offers a promising avenue for alleviating this burden. 

13. As important as they are, statutes such as the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act are 

essentially adversarial laws that pit the rights of citizens to obtain government information against 

the rights of government not to disclose it. There is a missing statutory building block that would 

authorize and direct agencies to affirmatively disseminate their public information so as to help 

remove from the public the daunting burden of first needing to know whether the information they 

need even exists or not, if so, where it is located, how to obtain it, and so forth, and treating public 

information as a strategic national asset. Treating public information as a strategic national asset 

does not imply exploitation of that asset to generate revenue for the government, like the sale of 

lumber or mineral rights on federal land. On the contrary, it must result in optimizing timely and 

permanent public availability of the information for its owners, the people of the United States. 

14. Policy leadership focus, oversight, and coordination of public information resources programs and 

functions are fragmented, dispersed, compartmentalized, and unfocused across agency lines, and 

needs to be focused in a single lead agency in the Executive branch, and in comparable single 

focal points within both the Legislative and Judicial branches. 

15. The business model that existed in the 19th and 20th centuries whereby the Government Printing 

Office made available extra copies of its print runs of government documents directly, easily, and 

efficiently to federal depository libraries across the nation is no longer appropriate to the Internet 

Age and needs to be reformed. Although its mission is to provide timely dissemination and 

permanent public availability to virtually all public information resources, an outdated statute that 

lacks enforcement provisions and limited funding keep the FDLP from fulfilling its potential. 

16. The business model that has been utilized by the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

for financing and making available government-financed R&D scientific and technical report 

literature is no longer appropriate to the Internet Age and needs to be reformed. 

17. The public information sales programs of GPO and other agencies are based on pre-Internet Age 

technologies and economics and need to be reformed to take into account the capabilities (both 

limits and opportunities) of the Internet. 

18. There is no standard language in agency level and program level enabling legislation which 

contains the agency’s basic mission, and program goals and objectives statements, respectively, 

that authorizes and directs agencies to proactively disseminate their information to the public as an 

integral part of their mission. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-14 

19. Except for the major statistical agencies, the national libraries, and some central information 

service agencies, such as GPO and NTIS, there are few effective budgetary incentives that 

motivate mission agencies to affirmatively disseminate their information to the general public. 

Beyond a limited number of very explicit statutory authorizations for board public dissemination 

such as that for the Department of Agriculture,27 most mission agency dissemination is focused on 

primary constituents of the agency's programs. 

20. The hundreds of federal laws containing some provision or another for establishing a public 

information resource that are currently in effect are a virtual patchwork quilt of laws that overlap 

and duplicate one another, are inconsistent and contradictory, and are often not appropriate to the 

Internet Age.28

21. The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, the 

Federal Records Act, and other laws,29 contain provisions related to public information 

dissemination that are not synchronized in terms of their purposes, the definitions of key terms 

such as "government information," agency public information dissemination responsibilities, and 

both executive and legislative oversight responsibilities. This is also true for government-wide 

policies such as OMB Circular A-130. 

22. It has been assumed, incorrectly, that public needs for government information are entirely met by 

the fortuitous enactment of individual laws that contain quite specific public information resource 

provisions. However, many public needs for government information are not adequately met by 

any law, and no systematic effort has been made to identify these needs and determine how best to 

meet them.30

23. The traditional ways government classifies positions and duties in the various federal manpower 

and personnel systems it employs are not adequately reflecting the new skills and occupations 

required by the Internet Age. This makes it difficult to attract and retain a skilled federal 

workforce. 

24. Opportunities for training, re-training, and professional development are not adequate to ensure 

the computer and information literacy needs of the federal workforce and to continually upgrade 

its skills. 

Problems that can be fixed by the commercial (for-profit) private sector

1. The private sector has not sufficiently re-examined its role in the dissemination of the public 

information resources in the Internet Age. It needs to reform and update that role by establishing 

 

27 The Department of Agriculture is directed to "...diffuse among the people of the United States, useful information on 

subjects connected with Agriculture..." (7 U.S.C. 2201). 

28 Jane Bortnick Griffith, Harold C. Relyea, and Frances A. Buffalo, Compilation of Statutes Authorizing Dissemination of 

Government Information to the Public, Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service (March 29, 

1996) includes an index of statutes relating to the dissemination of public information. More recent laws on dissemination of 

public information are identified in Appendix 33 in Volume 3 of this report: Index to a Compilation of Recent Federal 

Statutes Pertaining to Public Information Dissemination, and in Appendix 35 in Volume 4: A Compilation of Recent Federal 

Statutes Pertaining to Public Information Dissemination, which includes excerpts of relevant provisions. Appendices 33 and 

35 are also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen33.pdf and 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen35.pdf, respectively. 

29 In its "Analysis of Key Sections" of OMB Circular A-130 [op cit.], OMB states: "...agencies' information dissemination 

products are to be, in the words of 44 U.S.C. 1108, 'necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of the 

agency.' ... The point is that agencies should determine systematically the need for each information dissemination product." 

This is stretching the printing and binding laws to establish a basis for agency public information dissemination authority. 

30This issue is addressed in Finding 3.B, Conclusion 4, and Recommendation 19. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-15 

new and strengthened collaborative partnerships with government, new kinds of value-added 

services, and new opportunities for helping government more fully exploit its strategic information 

resources for the benefit of all citizens. 

Problems that can be fixed by lower levels of government

1. State, local, and tribal levels of governments, like the federal government, do not regard their data, 

information and knowledge holdings as strategic national assets. Many of the findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report also apply to these other levels of 

government and may be adapted and customized by those governments to reform their own 

information dissemination laws, policies and practices. 

2. State, local, and tribal levels of government do not work as closely and effectively as they might 

with the federal level for the purpose of eliminating or at least minimizing the barriers to more 

effective information interchange between government levels, including the development of multilevel, multi-purpose public information products to replace disparate and diverse single-level, 

single-purpose products that make it difficult for the public to learn and utilize because of 

differences in terminology, access procedures, and so on; and 

3. State, local and tribal levels of government are not working as effectively as they could with the 

federal level for the purpose of developing uniform and common information interchange 

standards, such as ANSI/NISO Standard Z-39.50, and guidelines so as to minimize the detrimental 

and costly consequences of employing incompatible standards, dealing with interconnectivity and 

interoperability barriers, and confronting unnecessary search and retrieval differences. 

Problems that can be fixed by the not-for-profit sector, including professional associations, and 

academic, research, and related institutions

1. Academic and research institutions have not yet fully and effectively addressed the mammoth 

computer and information literacy education and training challenges that face the nation; library 

and information science schools and programs, and computer science and MIS schools and 

programs, have key roles in this regard. 

2. Academic and research institutions have not mounted fully effective research programs to identify 

the information needs of all sectors of the society, especially the needs of the disabled, the 

disadvantaged and other special populations. 

3. Both public and private academic and research institutions are not fully and effectively 

collaborating to bring the digital library, electronic publishing, and related concepts into full 

fruition; and 

4. Library and information professional associations, as well as computer and information 

management societies, are not sufficiently aggressive in mounting education and training, career 

development, and professional development programs for their memberships to help close the 

wide gap between the needs for Internet Age skills and existing capabilities. 

5. Professional associations and societies with academic memberships are not sufficiently aggressive 

in their efforts to redesign and reform curricula so that the nation’s schools begin to turn out the 

modern information professional with the appropriate competencies and skills. 

A WORKING DEFINITION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-16 

Public Information

This study begins with a definition of "Public Sector Information." Because there is no agreed-upon 

uniform statutory definition of the term "public sector information" or simply "public information," for 

the purposes of this study the Commission chooses to utilize the definition set forth in the preamble to 

the NCLIS Principles of Public Information31 to establish its working definition. The preamble reads:

We define public information as information created, compiled and/or maintained by 

the federal government. We assert that public information is information owned by the 

people, held in trust by their government, and should be available to the people except 

where restricted by law. 

In short, the Commission strongly believes the public has a fundamental right to the information 

produced by the government, conditioned only by the legal exemptions stipulated in various statutes 

such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and national security legislation.32

[P]ublic information [is] information created, compiled and/or maintained by 

the federal government. [P]ublic information is information owned by the 

people, held in trust by their government, and should be available to the 

people except where restricted by law. 

Principles of Public Information 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

Nevertheless, several other existing, and important, statutory definitions of public information need to 

be recognized because the absence of a standard definition in the United States Code has caused 

considerable consternation among stakeholders who have tried to reform the government's public 

information dissemination machinery in the past. 

For example, Chapter 19 of Title 44 U.S.C., dealing with the Federal Depository Library Program, 

states that "[g]overnment publication as used in this chapter, means informational matter which is 

published as an individual document at government expense, or as required by law," and that 

"[g]overnment publications, except those determined by their issuing components to be required for 

official use only or for strictly administrative or operational purposes which have no public interest or 

educational value and publications classified for reasons of national security shall be made available 

... for public information." 

Chapter 34 of Title 44 U.S.C.—the Paperwork Reduction Act—also supplies a very broad definition, 

stating that "the term 'public information' means any information, regardless of form or format, that an 

agency discloses, disseminates, or makes available to the public." 

 

31 The complete statement of the NCLIS Principles of Public Information is available as Appendix 10 and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/info/pripubin.html and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen10.pdf. 32 Jane Bortnick Griffith, op. cit. More recent laws restricting access are identified in Appendix 33 in Volume 3 of this report:

Index to a Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public Information Dissemination and in Appendix 35 in 

Volume 4: A Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public Information Dissemination. Appendices 33 and 35 

are also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen33.pdf and 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen35.pdf, respectively. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-17 

In terms of existing federal government regulations, OMB Circular A-130, which governs Executive 

Branch information resources management practices in general, and public information dissemination 

practices in particular, provides the following definition of government information: 

a. The term "government information" means information created, collected, processed, 

disseminated, or disposed of by or for the Federal Government. 

b. The term "government publication" means information which is published as an individual 

document at government expense, or as required by law. (44 U.S.C. 1901) 

c. The term "information" means any communication or representation of knowledge such as facts, 

data, or opinions in any medium or form, including textual, numerical, graphic, cartographic, 

narrative, or audiovisual forms. 

d. The term "information dissemination product" means any book, paper, map, machine-readable 

material, audiovisual production, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or 

characteristic, disseminated by an agency to the public.33

It is apparent that there is substantial difference between "information dissemination product" as 

defined in the A-130 definition and the concept that all government information not otherwise 

exempted by statute should be available to, and accessible by, the public, as enunciated in this 

Commission's Principles of Public Information34 and by other sections of Title 44 of the U.S. Code 

that pertain to public information. 

Finally, records of government accessible under the FOIA, E-FOIA, the Administrative Procedure Act 

and Government in the Sunshine Act also affect further dissemination and access, since this 

information can be re-disseminated without restriction once it is made available. Federal government 

executive branch information subject to disclosure under FOIA is defined as follows: 

Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public 

inspection and copying: 

(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, 

made in the adjudication of cases; 

(B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the 

agency and are not published in the Federal Register; 

(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the 

public; 

(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been released to 

any person under paragraph (3) and which, because of the nature of their subject 

matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject of 

subsequent requests for substantially the same records; and 

(E) a general index of the records referred to under subparagraph (D). 

Nevertheless, FOIA recognizes that agencies can withhold certain types of information in their 

possession. As explained in the House Report accompanying the Electronic Freedom of Information 

Amendments of 1996: 

The nine exemption categories are: 

 

33 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of Federal Information Resources," OMB Circular A-130, 

Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget, November 30, 2000; 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a130/a130trans4.html. 34 The complete statement of the NCLIS Principles of Public Information is available as Appendix 10 and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/info/pripubin.html and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen10.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-18 

• Information that is classified for national defense or foreign policy purposes; 

• Information that relates solely to an agency's internal personnel rules and 

practices; 

• Information that has been clearly exempted under other laws; 

• Confidential business information, such as trade secrets; 

• Internal government deliberative communications about a decision before an 

announcement; 

• Information about an individual that, if disclosed, would cause a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; 

• Law enforcement records, particularly of ongoing investigations; 

• Information concerning bank supervision; and 

• Geological and geophysical information, such as maps.35

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552) is the general statute that describes agency 

responsibilities for "making available to the public information." Section 552 is entitled 

"Public information, agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings." Unfortunately, 

the provisions of this very general statute are primarily oriented to the generic disclosure in 

the Federal Register of various kinds of agency records and documents, such as 

organizational charts, formal opinions, rules and regulations, statements of policy, and 

procedural manuals that affect the public in some respect. There is a provision requiring 

agencies to provide the public with indexes to their information but, as in the case of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires agencies to provide indexes of their "information 

dissemination products," this requirement is rarely enforced. 36

In short, there are inconsistencies in these various definitions of public information that need to be 

corrected, and this study makes specific recommendations as to how those inconsistencies may be 

eliminated. 

Permanent Public Availability

As public information has migrated from paper publications to electronic information, the concern that 

such information will no longer be permanently publicly available has become a critical consideration. 

As a result, the term "permanent public availability" has become a very important concept that also 

must be defined in statute. In practice the terms availability and accessibility have been used 

interchangeably, although there is a technical distinction between the two. Availability refers to the 

basic entitlement of the public to government information not otherwise restricted from disclosure by 

statute. Accessibility refers to how the public searches for, locates and retrieves the information. There 

is a substantial amount of agency-initiated information to which the public is entitled under the above 

definition of public information resources, which is not disseminated to the public. However, for the 

sake of simplicity, and to avoid confusion, the term "permanent public availability" as defined and 

used in this report means both availability and accessibility. 

 

35 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Electronic Freedom of 

Information Amendments of 1996, House Report 104-795, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 17, 

1996, page 6. 

36 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-19 

The Commission defines permanent public availability as "the making available to, and accessible by, 

the public the maximum amount of public information resources on an indefinite, continuing basis, 

free of charge."37 This is further qualified by the statement that "this public availability is distinct from 

the deposit of an official copy for "Permanent Records Retention" by the National Archives and 

includes information resources that may not come under the Federal Records Act definitions of a 

federal record because they are acquired, organized and preserved solely for convenience of public 

reference; furthermore, public availability is meant to convey immediate access through the World 

Wide Web (or its successor technology) or availability through collections, both digital and nondigital, held by a widely distributed national network of libraries such as the federal depository 

libraries." 

It should also be noted that there is some government information that is ephemeral and simply should 

not be permanent, but should have a scheduled deletion time. Therefore "permanent" means for the 

specified useful life of the information, not necessarily in perpetuity. For example, the Commission 

has posted several drafts of this report for public review and comment; each has been withdrawn as a 

later draft has been issued, and this final report supersedes and replaces the latest draft. There is no 

reason to maintain in perpetuity every iteration of report as it evolves, but there is every reason to 

maintain the official position of the Commission as it is issued in the final report. In contrast, a new 

edition of a book or a report may supersede the old edition, but the old edition may still have value for 

research or other purposes.38 Obviously, there must be clear guidance and regulations to assist 

agencies in making those distinctions, as there are for identifying permanent records, and the current 

and future needs of the public must be paramount in making the determinations. 

THE GOVERNMENT INFORMATION LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT PROCESS

OMB Circular A-130 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this discussion: 

1. The term "information life cycle" means the stages through which information passes, typically 

characterized as creation or collection, processing, dissemination, use, storage, and disposition. 

2. The term "information management" means the planning, budgeting, manipulating, and 

controlling of information throughout its life cycle. 

3. The term "information resources" includes both government information and information 

technology.39

The functions of identifying, acquiring, organizing, announcing, accessing, disseminating, preserving, 

and archiving information are basic government information life cycle management functions. 

Concomitant with the issue of access to information are the issues of optimizing its usefulness, 

ensuring its authenticity and integrity, and guaranteeing its retention and archiving.40 At present there 

 

37 This definition is from Appendix 11 in Volume 2 of this report: The Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001. 

Appendix 11 is also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen11.pdf. 38 Finding 1.L includes an example of a series of Social Security Administration publications that were still in active use 

when they were removed from its web page. This title was not distributed in any tangible form through the FDLP since it was 

available electronically. As a result the versions that were removed from the SSA website are no longer available for public 

access in any form. 

39 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of Federal Information Resources," OMB Circular A-130, 

Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget, November 30, 2000; 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a130/a130trans4.html.

40 The term archiving as it is used here refers to preserving the information for research or reference use, not preservation of 

official records as it is defined the Federal Records Act. The descriptions of many of these information management 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-20 

are no automated tools that perform these functions in a completely uniform, fully reliable, consistent 

manner. While the Internet, and its tools like the World Wide Web, search engines and categorization 

aides like those found in Yahoo, have brought new opportunities—and challenges—the basic 

information management functions still require at least some human physical and intellectual efforts. 

Identifying. In the context of information life cycle management process, everything begins with 

identification, that is, knowing that some specific information exists that needs to be subjected to the 

rigorous disciplines of the information life cycle management process. Yet this step is often taken for 

granted (i.e., information creators assume someone else has or will take care of the problem) and 

therefore overlooked; but responsibility for complete and correct identification with appropriate 

metadata tools41 is essential to the entire information management process and, in the first instance, is 

the responsibility of the information creator or originator. If the information life cycle is viewed 

holistically, then when individuals create electronic documents in an agency, or as agents funded by an 

agency, they can immediately place those information products in an e-print/preprint/Open Archives 

Initiative repository. 

Acquiring. Once information is identified, that is, it is known to exist, it must be acquired in order for 

the other steps to take place. This acquisition may take the form of a "push" mode, as in the instance of 

students in an academic environment submitting a thesis or dissertation to an established digital 

library, or a "pull" mode, as in reading information on a website and noting its name, or it may mean 

actually obtaining a copy in some tangible form, such as paper or microfiche, or downloading an 

electronic file. Without acquiring the information, there is no information to organize, announce, 

access, disseminate or preserve. Like identification, this step is often taken for granted, and therefore 

overlooked, but it is essential to the entire information management process. In order to assign a 

classification number, prepare a cataloging record or a bibliographic citation, assign indexing terms or 

write an abstract, the information that is to be described must first be acquired. 

 

Organizing. Information has only potential power. The power of information exists only when it can 

be put into the mind of a person (or a machine) so that it can be used. It is more of an Information 

management issue than an information technology issue. Given the rapidly expanding amount of 

information that is on the Internet, finding information online is as difficult as finding a book in the 

Library of Congress without a catalog. 

Organizing information so those requiring it can find it and utilize it has been a work in progress for 

centuries. With the beginning of the University movement in the 13th century librarians began to 

organize information in ways meaningful to a diverse group of individuals, but most of their work was 

directed to their local community and also suffered in the conflicts between religion, monarchies, and 

science. In the 18th century the value of knowledge diffusion again became important to those in 

power. Since then effective standards for bibliographic information have progressively been adopted 

and improved. Cataloging standards, abstracting and indexing elements, terminology and thesauri, 

records management, and archiving have been adopted. There is a difference between categorization 

of information and indexing of information. Information is often categorized into general groups such 

as travel, medical, or chemistry. These may then be broken down into subcategories (e.g., travel in the 

U.S., in Europe, in Africa). An example of categorization is a table of contents. It leads a reader to a 

chapter or chapters that may contain the desired information. Indexing is more specific. Indexing 

permits specific bits of information to be found. The index of a book indexes specific words or phases 

 functions are derived from the report of Commission Panel Two available as Appendix 24 in Volume 3 of this report and also 

at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen24.pdf. 41 The term metadata is used many places in this report. It means, simply, information about information, or data about data, 

e.g., an abstract and related indexing that describes a document, a cataloging record, or a bibliographic citation. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-21 

to the pages where they may be located. Indexing may also use controlled vocabularies to aid in the 

finding of information. Helicopters and rotary winged vehicles are the same thing. Controlled 

vocabularies allow information searching to be performed using a specific controlled word or phrase 

that brings together several words or phrases with the same or similar meaning. 

Knowledge is frequently organized along traditional disciplinary lines, as are subject matter indexes, 

abstracts, and key words. Yet this organizational scheme often frustrates potential users, and makes 

multidisciplinary utilization of knowledge difficult for users and intermediaries alike. A distinguished 

information scientist, F. Wilfred Lancaster, has pointed out that although technological advances have 

undoubtedly increased physical access to sources of information, it is doubtful that intellectual access 

has increased significantly, if at all. He indicates that although advances in computer and information 

technology may provide greater access to available knowledge, they do not provide an effective means 

of filtering it in terms of quality or problem relevance. Contemporary storage and retrieval systems 

may actually have exacerbated problems of the existing structure, organization, and management of 

knowledge, and may now be contributing to the very problems they were designed to solve!42

Digitizing. Work to develop similar methods and techniques for digital information is in the seminal 

stage. Digital libraries are perhaps an outstanding example of progress in this area. Communities that 

have "grown up" with digital data in addition to analog data (textual, multimedia and other forms of 

information) are more advanced than those that have not. The definition of multimedia has evolved to 

encompass rather startling advances in functionality such that it is no longer possible to simply offer a 

definition of integrated pictures, sound, data, and video. 

The international community versed in Geographic Information Systems has developed only in the 

past few decades. This community gained an early and abiding interest in metadata, so that the sharing 

of metadata among geospatial projects and software vendors is now well standardized. The digital 

data communities, while perhaps more advanced in managing digital content than the digital text and 

multimedia communities, still share a major challenge—information overload. This information 

overload is counter-productive and leads to less effectiveness and efficiency despite the power and 

capabilities of the technology. 

Announcing. Regardless of how well organized content is, if those who may need it don't know of its 

existence it isn't information, it's just a potential resource. The need to provide tools for finding 

organized relevant information from multiple sources led to a significant sector of the information 

industry called secondary publishing. Organizations, both public and private, in this sector create 

reference tools such as bibliographic publications with citations from journals, books, monographs, 

conference proceedings, databases or other sources containing full text or numeric data. These 

organizations normally support specific communities of interest by supplying a comprehensive 

collection of references of interest to the target community. Similar roles are played by government 

agencies, such as the National Library of Medicine with its Index Medicus and MEDLINE database. 

Accessing. While it is important to know about the existence of needed content, it is normally more 

important to obtain the content itself. This, perhaps, is one of the biggest problems facing users and 

information managers alike. For example, the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) has 

online citations to the nearly two million technical reports in its collection. However, only full text 

documents brought into the collection since 1994 and those converted based on demand are in digital 

form. The cost to digitize the full collection is prohibitive. Thus, DTIC still annually supplies tens of 

 

42 F. W. Lancaster, "Has Technology Failed Us?" Information Technology and Library Management, Festschrift in Honour 

of Margaret Bechman, 13th International Essen Symposium, 22-25 October 1989, A. H. Helal and J. W. Weiss, editors, 

Essen, Germany: Essen University Library (1991). 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-22 

thousands of printed documents to its customers. It is interesting to note that, even where documents 

are in electronic form, a significant demand still exists for them to be supplied as printed documents. 

The average size of a document in the DTIC collection is 110 pages. It takes no research to know that 

most people prefer NOT to read a large document online, nor do many people have the capability to 

download and print large documents locally. 

Another consideration in discussing access is how digital documents are stored and delivered. The 

way that users download and import documents from the web varies depending on the browser being 

used and the applications on the user(s) system. For example, the Adobe Acrobat Portable Document 

Format (PDF) is a file type created to allow formatted documents to be widely distributed regardless 

of whether specific fonts or a postscript printer are available to the viewer's system. PDF files can 

embed specialized fonts and images within the document as they are distributed and can print on a 

wide range of printers. This ensures the document remains exactly as formatted by its authors. 

Adobe Systems created the PDF format. This company freely distributes its Adobe Acrobat Reader 

software to anyone who wishes to view PDF files. Some PDF files are merely images of the 

documents and thus support no full text searching. To date, the PDF files created by NTIS are all 

scanned images files. Other PDF files are created from word processing or typesetting programs and 

can be searched internally, and with the appropriate software, externally. Adobe Systems is working to 

improve access to the searchable PDF files by external search engines. There are, of course, other 

approaches that will allow full-text searching of an electronic document. These, however, may be 

considerably more expensive to produce, can more easily be altered, and do not ensure the document 

remains exactly as formatted (which may or may not be important, depending on the document itself 

and the intent of the user). 

It is also important to distinguish between physical access and intellectual access. The former term 

refers to having the physical means and tools to obtain information, such as a computer, modem, 

necessary software, and so forth. The latter term refers to the requisite degree of mental ability and 

information literacy necessary to know how to obtain the information efficiently, effectively, and 

economically. That is to say, the process, the procedures, the systems, and the proper selection and 

mix of techniques, tools, and approaches to employ. The term “digital divide” is virtually meaningless 

if it is used to refer only to physical access barriers. 

Disseminating. OMB Circular A-130 states that the term dissemination means the governmentinitiated distribution of information to the public. Distribution limited to government employees or 

agency contractors or grantees, intra- or interagency use or sharing of government information, and 

responses to requests for agency records under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or 

Privacy Act is not considered dissemination within the meaning of this Circular. As currently defined 

in the circular, access, on the other hand, is an "on-demand" or "pull" function while dissemination is a 

"push" function, normally a subscription type of service based on individual customer needs. Both, 

however, involve sending information to others. 

Access does not equal dissemination, and physical access is not the same thing 

as intellectual access. The Commission is fearful that at least some federal 

agencies tend to equate the two sets of terms when they post public information 

on their websites, thereby providing "physical access," and then claiming that 

both the "dissemination" requirement and the intellectual access requirement 

have been fulfilled, when in fact neither has been. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-23 

The circular points out that access is a passive function for federal agencies and differs from active 

dissemination. Access, according to the Circular, "is the government's responsibility," as, for example, 

when the public comes to the government and asks for information the government has, and to which 

the public is entitled. Dissemination, however, is when, "the government provides the public with 

information without the public having to come and ask for it. [emphasis added]"43 These definitions 

could apply just as well to government organizations at any level of government. 

In any event, Access does not equal dissemination. The Commission is fearful that at least some 

federal agencies tend to equate the two sets of terms when they post public information on their 

websites, thereby providing "physical access," and then claiming that since both the "dissemination" 

requirement and the intellectual access requirement have been fulfilled, when in fact neither has been. 

In short, these agencies make limited or no effort to call attention to the information by reaching out to 

the special populations who have a need to know not only of its existence and availability, but how to 

obtain it efficiently, effectively, and economically. 

Preserving. Knowledge advances by building upon what has gone before. Sir Isaac Newton attributed 

his discoveries to the work done by his predecessors, stating, "If I have seen farther than others, it is 

because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."44 Indeed, on a grander scale, the period before 

recorded (and somewhat preserved) information artifacts is called Prehistoric because there are no 

records of the accomplishments of that time. Information is critical to scientists and engineers, to 

historians, to decision makers, to students, in fact nearly to everyone. Accordingly, it must be 

preserved. 

The advent of the digital world, however, is bringing new challenges. In the past much of the 

challenge of preservation was left to specialist such as records managers and archivists to address 

long-term needs and clerical personnel to handle the short-term needs of the organization and 

implement the records management policies of the specialists. In the digital world quite often an 

original document may never get into a preservation system. It may be created to serve the purpose of 

the author(s), stored and transmitted by a system managed by an information technologist and 

completely bypass the critical preservation function. Information that may be of critical importance to 

others may be irretrievably lost, as well as the record of its existence. Long-term retention needs for 

digital materials with informational, historical, research, evidential, legal, artifactual, or other value 

must also be taken into account records and archival specialists as well as librarians must be consulted 

as part of the group of specialists needed to design systems that support both immediate short-term 

needs and long-term retention. These systems must also provide for the preservation of copies of vital 

records in the event of the catastrophic failure of a computer system or facility. 

It is important to recognize, however, that preservation does not necessarily ensure permanent public 

availability, while availability, on the other hand, does not necessarily encompass preservation. So 

discussions about archival policies and practices in this electronic era must include the concept of 

permanent public availability of information. Furthermore, preservation of digital information involves 

unknown, and as yet unknowable, costs to migrate the information to different formats and media to 

prevent technological obsolescence. There is real concern that information will be lost as the 

equipment and software used to create and use digital information becomes obsolete. Depository 

librarians and others feel that in a rapidly changing electronic environment, they cannot be sure that 

the currently available electronic files will be able to be opened and used in the future or that there will 

 

43 There are, in fact, other types of dissemination not recognized by the definition in the circular. For example, some 

government agencies allow users to establish a profile, thus "asking" for specific categories of information that are then sent

out to them when information matching the profile becomes available. See Finding 4.C for additional discussion of this topic. 

44 Sir Isaac Newton in a letter to Hooke, 5 Feb. 1676. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-24 

be an easy, cost-effective means to migrate this generation of electronic products to future formats and 

media. 

However, preservation considerations involve more than just future formats and mediums; 

preservation must also involve a careful crafting of preservation strategies, a program for preservation, 

pilot projects to test new approaches, and monitoring of results. Simply replacing obsolescing 

technologies with newer ones, and then "walking away" from the challenge, will not be adequate. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S LEADERSHIP 

The federal government's leadership in the area of public information availability and accessibility has 

been mixed. Let us first look at the positive side of the ledger. 

The President, the Congress, individual federal agencies, and the Judiciary are all to be commended 

for the extraordinary leadership which they have demonstrated, especially in the last four or five years, 

to exploit the full advantages of the Internet and the World Wide Web, and the incredible power and 

capabilities underlying information and telecommunications technologies, to maximize the availability 

of electronic government information and electronic government services to the American people. 

Virtually every week in the popular media the citizen is alerted to: 

• A new electronic service to simplify and speed up doing business with the government, such as 

seeking grants, loans, permits, licenses, and many other benefits and entitlements, and to 

consolidate and integrate related services, such as systems enabling aging veterans to apply for 

pensions, medical benefits, and other entitlements in a single, multi-purpose application. 

• A new website, database, online clearinghouse, or other electronic public information product or 

service to alert citizens as to what new and existing benefits and entitlements they are eligible for, 

or help them seek employment, protect their family's health and welfare, ensure safety and 

security measures at home, in schools, and in the workplace, view a weather forecast to know 

when to plant crops, and so on. 

• A new law or amendment to an existing statute that strengthens the public's ability to identify, 

search for, locate, retrieve, and utilize the government's vast information holdings. 

However, there is a considerable way yet to go. Executive, Legislative and Judicial leadership 

continues to be needed in harnessing modern information and telecommunications technologies to 

help job seekers, senior citizens, minorities, small and medium-sized businesses, lower levels of 

governments, and public and private institutions such as schools and hospitals, to cope with their many 

challenges, including: 

• Helping the private citizen to meet his or her myriad personal, family, and community challenges 

by learning about hundreds of government assistance programs, and how to find and apply for the 

benefits and services they provide, but ideally by first improving their public information literacy 

skills using libraries and information professionals. 

• Assisting small and medium-sized enterprises by providing massive amounts of periodically 

updated scientific, statistical, technical, and other data and information to help find or expand their 

existing domestic and global markets, to diversify their product lines and increase sales volume, to 

apply for patents and copyrights and trademarks, and to help government itself perform its 

functions more efficiently through privatization where appropriate, through value-added service 

contributions, and through Information Age partnership arrangements; the digital library could be 

a very helpful tool in this regard. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-25 

• Helping lower levels of government, especially individual communities and Native American 

tribes, carry out their programs and services more efficiently and effectively, and to minimize 

unnecessary overlap and duplication between the hundreds of programs and services administered 

by all levels of government—federal, state, local, and tribal. 

• Assisting students to finance their education, and helping schools, colleges and universities to 

modernize their curricula, and assist their faculties and staff by employing distant learning (remote 

education) and other online educational technologies in consort with traditional modes of teaching 

and learning. 

• Assisting senior citizens, the disabled, the disadvantaged, minorities and other special populations, 

to meet their medical, economic, legal, and social service information needs, including lifelong 

learning opportunities. 

• Assisting hospitals, nursing homes, community centers, and other healthcare and community 

social and economic institutions to meet the needs of their clientele for medical, economic, legal, 

and social service information, including lifelong learning opportunities. 

• Helping historians, archivists, librarians, journalists, researchers, genealogists, as well as the 

general population, find and retrieve official government records and government publications and 

documents, preserve them once created, index and organize them, correlate them across federal 

agency and discipline lines, and make them more accessible. 

• Assisting legislators, governors, mayors, judges, school district officials, and other public servants 

to fulfill their governance duties and responsibilities more efficiently, to raise their consciousness 

level more effectively as to issues and concerns of which they must be aware, and to allow them to 

interact with their constituents more efficiently through such measures as websites, listservs, 

electronic bulletin boards, and e-mail messaging. 

Information Resources Map

The Commission "mapped" a small sample of some key public information products by correlating 

nine key attributes in a single matrix-like framework so that policymakers can more readily 

understand, at a glance, the inter-relationships between: the statutory authority for the resource; who 

the beneficiary-users are; what the sources of the data or information are; the authors and the nature of 

value-added contributions; how the resource is distributed or made available; how the resource is 

financed; and whether a charge is levied for obtaining it or not. The Federal Library and Information 

Center Committee (FLICC), and GODORT, the Government Documents Roundtable of the American 

Library Association (ALA) each prepared several "Public Information Resources Maps".45 Figure 2 

provides a representative information resources map for four Department of Labor information 

products. 

Landmark Legislative Initiatives on Government Information

The following selected list of landmark legislative initiatives on government information illustrates 

how all three branches of government have moved to put in place strengthened electronic government 

information services, especially in areas where the government interacts with the public:46

 

45 The Public Information Resources Maps prepared by FLICC and GODORT are available in available as Appendix 29 in 

Volume 3 of this report and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen29.pdf. Individual maps can also be 

accessed from http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 46 Other examples are available in Appendix 32 in Volume 3 of this report: A Bibliography of National Information Policies, 

compiled by Toni Carbo, Dean, and her associates at the School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-26 

Agency 

Owner vs. Custodian

Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 

Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 

Department of Labor, 

Employment and 

Training 

Administration 

Department of Labor, 

Employment 

Standards 

Administration 

Resource Name 

Type(s), Format(s), 

Mediums

Monthly Labor Review Occupational Outlook 

Handbook 

Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles; 

(O*NET is the 

electronic version) 

General Wage 

Determination 

Guidelines 

Authority 

Laws, Agency 

Regulations, OMB 

Policies 

29 USC 2 et seq. 29 USC 2 et seq. 29 USC; 20 CFR 601 

et seq. (general ETA 

provisions) 

40 USC 276; 29 CFR 

Parts 1,4 and 5 

Beneficiaries 

(Users), Internal vs. 

External, Public vs. 

Private, Foreign

Wide distribution to 

parties with an interest 

in labor subject area 

Wide distribution to 

parties with an interest 

in labor subject area 

Wide distribution to 

parties with an interest 

in labor subject area 

Government agencies 

& government 

contractors 

Sources of Data 

Content

Articles received from 

solicitation in front 

cover and BLS 

editorial staff 

Survey results form a 

variety of professional 

societies, unions, 

industrial organizations 

and government 

agencies 

Research and 

verification by 40 

analysts 

Survey results from 

statutory mandate: all 

Federal government 

construction contracts 

and most contracts for 

federally assisted 

construction over 

$2000. 

Value-Added 

Contributions 

Analysts, Brokers, 

Librarians, 

Statisticians, Other 

Specialists

Statistical and 

economic analysis 

provided by 

contributors including 

BLS staff 

Research and analysis 

of reported date by 

BLS staff including 

occupational analysts 

Research and 

verification by many 

analysts as in the 

Forward 

Follows Davis Bacon 

Construction Wage 

Determinations 

Manual of Operations 

for collection of data; 

regional offices 

analyzes and tabulates 

wage and fringe 

benefit data, and 

determines the 

adequacy of data 

provided, and 

formalizes the survey 

results. 

Distributors 

In-house vs. Contract, 

Other Agencies 

BLS in cooperation 

with Superintendent of 

Documents, GPO 

BLS in cooperation 

with Superintendent of 

Documents, GPO 

DOL/ETA NTIS via web or CD 

subscription 

Financing 

Appropriations, 

Revolving Fund, User 

Fee 

User fee for production 

& distribution; 

research costs covered 

by DOL appropriations 

User fee for production 

& distribution; 

research costs covered 

by DOL appropriations 

User fee for production 

of 1991 edition; 

research costs covered 

by DOL appropriations 

User fee 

Fee/Free 

Terms and Conditions, 

Amount 

Annual subscription: 

$31.00 domestic; 

$38.75 foreign; free 

through Federal 

Depository Libraries 

BLS Bulletin # 2520: 

softbound $49.00; 

hardbound $51.00; free 

through Federal 

Depository Libraries 

Available without 

charge on the Internet: 

http://online.onetcenter

.org/ 

CD-ROM: $2,000 

annual subscription 

inside the US; $3,000 

outside the US; 

Internet: $600 annually 

to search from a single 

station 

Figure 2: Information Resources Map for Four Department of Labor Information Products 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-27 

• A Citizens Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request 

Government Records: First Report, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government 

Reform and Oversight, House Report 105-37, March 20, 1997. 

• The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments (E-FOIA), Public Law 104-231, 

October 2, 1996, which makes clear that government electronic material (e.g., e-mail messages) 

must also be considered an official agency record within the meaning of the Federal Records Act, 

and directing agencies to establish online reading rooms, and make agency information available 

in the medium of their choice. 

• The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998, Public Law 105-277, October 21, 

1998, which requires federal agencies to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting 

personal information from children. 

• The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), also in Public Law 105-277, October 21, 

1998, which sets deadlines for agencies to transfer their paper-based transaction systems to 

electronic-based systems, including most transactions that take place between the government and 

the public, including filing tax returns, applying for benefits and other entitlements, and so on; sets 

2003 as target date for completion of medium transference for most transactions. 

• The Information Technology Management Reform Act (Clinger-Cohen Act), Public Law 104-106, 

February 10, 1996, which expands and clarifies the CIO role in planning, managing and utilizing 

agency information technology resources. 

• Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Public Law 103-62, August 3, 1993, which 

holds agencies more directly accountable for achieving positive results by using observable and 

measurable performance indicators, and other means to verify and validate agency performance by 

comparing actual results achieved with expected and projected results. 

• The Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1995, Public Law 104-12, May 22, 1995, and 

Revised OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, which ties agency 

information technology and information resources more directly to agency missions and 

specifically addresses agency public information access and dissemination requirements in that 

context; and strengthens the role of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS). 

• The Rehabilitation Act, Section 508, Public Law 103-62, August 7, 1998, which requires that 

federal agency electronic and information technology be accessible to persons with disabilities, 

including members of the public and federal employees. 

• Technological, Scientific, and Engineering Information Act, Public Law 81-776, September 9, 

1950, the National Technical Information Act, Public Law 100-519, October 24, 1988, and the 

American Technology Preeminence Act, Public Law 102-245, February 14, 1992, which together 

direct the Secretary of Commerce to establish and maintain a clearinghouse for the collection and 

dissemination of scientific, technical, and engineering information. 

• GPO Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act, Public Law 103-40, June 8, 1993, which 

requires the Superintendent of Documents, through the Government Printing Office, to provide 

online electronic access to the Federal Register, the Congressional Record, and other appropriate 

publications. The GPO Access portal launched in June 1994 is established pursuant to this statute. 

• Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security Information, 1995, which directs the 

declassification of all classified information 25 years and older within five years of the Order's 

promulgation, except where otherwise explicitly exempted by statute. 

• Memorandum for Chief Information Officers and Federal WebMasters: Top Privacy Principles for 

Federal Websites, issued by GSA, Federal WebMasters Forum, 1998, and which directs agencies 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-28 

to place high priority on protecting the public's privacy, including notifying the public whenever 

data is collected on the Internet. 

• President's Memorandum on Privacy and Personal Information in Personal Records, May 14, 

1998, and M-99-05, instructions on complying with the Memorandum, January 7, 1999, which 

directs agencies to review current information practices and ensure they are being conducted in 

accordance with privacy law and policy. 

• Executive Order 13011, Federal Information Technology, 1996, which ties together the respective 

policies of the Information Technology Management Reform Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

and the Government Performance and Results Act, and formalizes OMB oversight authority of 

information technology. 

• Memorandum on Use of Information Technology to Improve Our Society, and Memorandum on 

Electronic Government, Presidential Memoranda for the Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies, Dec. 17, 1999, designed to strengthen public access to federal government information 

and services by directing agencies to put more information online that is identified and organized 

in a way that makes it easier for the public to find the information it seeks. 

• OMB Memorandum 98-05, Guidance on the Government Information Locator Service, 1998, 

which continues agency responsibilities with respect to the creation and use of GILS records 

notwithstanding the expiration of OMB Bulletin 95-01, Establishment of Government Information 

Locator Service, which directed the original establishment of GILS pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and OMB Circular A-130. 

• OMB survey of agency plans for e-Gov; on September 19, 2000, Sally Katzen, Deputy Director 

for Management of OMB sent a letter to Senators Thompson and Lieberman recapping steps 

Executive Branch agencies have taken to move smoothly toward the e-Gov environment 

contemplated by the Congress, and the Senate's Committee on Governmental Reform specifically. 

• On Becoming a Researcher in the Electronic Age, a forthcoming National Research Council 

booklet that will highlight many of the challenges outlined in the Commission’s report with the 

aim of increasing the awareness of these issues among scholars. 

THE HIDDEN COST OF "ELECTRONWORK" 

There is, however, another side of the ledger. There are many areas where the absence of dynamic 

federal leadership in public information is causing great difficulties. 

There are technocrats on all sides who point to the many benefits of the Internet and the World Wide 

Web, but little is said about the resulting burdens and the costs and how dramatically they are shifting. 

Some are saying that one of the biggest burdens is "Electronwork." The Commission uses this term to 

characterize the side effect of utilizing electronic information as the medium to interact with the 

government instead of utilizing ink-on-paper and other pre-electronic technologies, which were called 

"paperwork." 

For example, librarians and other professional information intermediaries, as well as end-users of 

public information, are understandably fearful that the formats and mediums they currently use (such 

as PDF files) are going to inevitably disappear, they are engaged in substantial printing of electronic 

documents to produce a backup hard copy. This creates an even greater transference of costs from the 

government to the end users—the public—and much, much more expensive unit cost per copy 

aggregate costs than even commercial printing! As the current argot goes "Hello? Is anybody out 

there?" The agencies are not too worried because they don't have to pay—but the end user does pay 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-29 

and this is a substantial cost to the U.S. economy. There is a priority need to carefully study the 

dramatic shifts and dislocations of both benefits and costs for public information dissemination in the 

Internet Age, but the complexity of such a task is beyond the scope of this assessment. 

In addition, consider the costs to download and print a 500 or 600 page report. The user incurs 

telecommunications costs; an amortized utilization of his or her computer equipment, including 

storage capacity for the electronic file; software costs for the programs to download and to process the 

electronic file; printer supplies, including a ream of paper and toner or ink; and then there is the time 

necessary to locate the file, download it and wait for it to print. In short, contrary to the broad, and 

commonly asserted, myth that information on the World Wide Web is a free good, when all of the 

"hidden" costs are added up, it certainly is anything but free to the user. A comprehensive benefit-cost 

analysis of the shifting benefits and burdens is sorely needed. 

INFORMATION COLLECTION BUDGET, BUT NO INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

BUDGET 

The federal government has an information collection budget as a disincentive mechanism to help 

keep the government's programs for collecting information from the public from becoming excessive, 

but the federal government does not have an information dissemination budget as an incentive 

mechanism to enhance the value of the government's programs for sharing its knowledge treasures 

more effectively and efficiently with the public. Disseminating information to the public is too often 

considered an afterthought, a by-product of an agency's operations, not an integral line item in agency 

program and project plans, budgets, procurement guidelines, and so on, much less an explicit element 

of the agency’s formal mission and program statements.

47

On the other hand, many agencies over the years have tried to push the idea of an information 

collection budget, not necessarily with this formal name, but their efforts have been at the agency level 

and, for the most part, have not succeeded very well. Perhaps the reason has been because of the fear 

that unless there was an approved government-wide approach, agencies would be criticized for 

moving into a sensitive area without Congressional approval. 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE PUBLIC INFORMATION SERVICES AND INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY(IES) MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER 

The role of the central public information services agencies is to ensure easy 

access by all segments of the public, including the disadvantaged and other 

special sectors of the general population, to a wide-range of public information 

from many agencies on a permanent basis. However, the mission-oriented 

agencies are more likely to provide ready access to only those documents that 

further the agency's mission, and only for as long as they further the agency's 

mission, and only to those well-defined constituency users in whom the 

agency's management is most interested, and to whom the agency is most 

accountable. 

Admittedly, now with electronic documents on the Web, mission agencies can perform some, but 

certainly not all, of the same functions of the central service and support agencies themselves without 

 

47 The need for an information dissemination budget is discussed in more detail in Recommendation 4. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-30 

significant cost and efforts. As a result, their support for the government-wide information services 

provided by NTIS, the Superintendent of Documents, and others, has begun to diminish. The 

individual agencies believe, incorrectly, that it is less important to provide their documents to the 

central information service agency since the public can get them from the agency (or bureau or 

division) websites, notwithstanding the statutory mandates to do so. This is a dangerous fallacy.48

When agencies, bureaus or divisions that do not have the primary mission of information 

dissemination go into the information dissemination business, they do so with a different orientation 

and different motives than those of the central information services agencies. The role of the central 

public information services agencies is to ensure easy access by all segments of the public, including 

the disadvantaged and other special sectors of the general population, to a wide-range of public 

information from many agencies on a permanent basis. However, the mission-oriented agencies are 

more likely to provide ready access to only those documents that further the agency's mission,49 and 

only for as long as they further the agency's mission, and only to those well-defined constituency users 

in whom the agency's management is most interested, and to whom the agency is most accountable. 

Thus, the principles of public access are not achieved uniformly through all of the agency information 

systems, and no one knows which of the thousands of systems is missing what specific information 

products. There is no assurance that the government is providing full public access to what should be 

public information. There is also no assurance on what that information is, or where it is. Instead, 

proper public information dissemination depends on the judgment of thousands of unmonitored 

officials at all levels in thousands of lower level units of government. 

Some people seem to be saying that we can get rid of central organizations 

entirely and move to a fully decentralized and dispersed infrastructure of 

information and communications, where nobody and no institution is in control 

of any of it! The Commission strongly disputes this view. 

There is also considerable confusion regarding a certain superficial parallelism between strong central 

policy leadership focus and oversight on the one hand, the dispersed and decentralized information 

holdings and flows in the Internet Age on the other hand. The pressure to get rid of "big, centralized, 

organizational structures" on the grounds that they are inappropriate to the "highly dispersed and 

decentralized storage and handling of information in the Internet Age" must be carefully considered 

and applied. Some people seem to be saying that we can get rid of central organizations entirely and 

move to a fully decentralized and dispersed infrastructure of information and communications, where 

nobody and no institution is in control of (or responsible for) any of it! The Commission strongly 

disputes this view as simplistic and naive. 

The paradox in all of this electronic information largess, in the words of Deanna B. Marcum, one of 

the Commission’s experts, in her comments on an earlier draft of this report: "the easier it is to create 

and store information, the harder it is to manage, and the greater is the threat that we will not be able to 

find something when we need it." Marcum continues, "there is simply too much to sort through, but 

information is useful only if it can be easily found and retrieved. Anyone who has gone to an Internet 

 

48 This issue discussed in more detail under Finding 6.A. 

49 The major research and development agencies, such as the Departments of Defense and Energy and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), do consider access to relevant research and development part of their 

mission, but have traditionally focused most of the efforts on service to the agency personnel, contractors and grant 

recipients. Recently the Department of Energy and the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) have begun to offer 

access to the general public through their websites. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-31 

search engine with a real if imprecisely worded query and gotten thousands of "hits" in response 

knows that too much information is as bad as none at all." 

The Commission argues that, on the one side, as the pressures to disperse, fragment, distribute and 

decentralize information flows and holdings increase, there is a corresponding need on the other side 

to ensure that such dispersion, fragmentation, distribution and decentralization is planned and 

managed under careful, overall policy leadership and guidance. Otherwise, the entire infrastructure 

will devolve into nothing more than a vast network of disconnected databases and collections, 

systems, and networks that are not interoperable. This may be some Internet telecommunication 

engineer's ideal fantasy, but it will be of no practical value to most users. The lack of uniform 

government-wide web electronic publishing guidelines is a golden example of how the federal 

government currently risks losing control of public information dissemination unless the reforms 

contemplated in this report are put into place. Fortunately, an updated Guide to Federal Publishing by 

the Interagency Council on Printing and Publications Services and the Federal Publishers Committee 

will soon be published that addresses many of these issues.50

RECENT NCLIS PUBLIC INFORMATION POLICY RESEARCH INITIATIVES 

As mentioned above, in 1996 the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science began a 

series of closely related studies aimed at assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the federal 

government's public information dissemination machinery. A proposed Statement of Work, prepared 

by the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS), preceded these studies and recommended three main stages:51

• Research and data collection. 

• Analysis of results, including the documentation of findings and conclusions. 

• Formulating recommendations to the President and the Congress. 

Then in 1996, the first research and data collection initiative was taken in the form of a request from 

the Government Printing Office (GPO) to NCLIS to undertake an assessment of the proliferation of 

electronic government information products formats, mediums, platforms, and protocols. As 

mentioned, NCLIS awarded a contract to Westat, Inc. The details of the study are contained in the full 

report, which is available from the GPO website.52

Eight policy and planning issue findings of that earlier study are directly relevant to this study: 

1. There is an overall lack of government information policy guiding electronic publishing, 

dissemination, permanent public availability, and information life cycle management, especially as 

information policy relates to agency missions. Also, there is a lack of overall coordination of these 

initiatives at the governmental, branch and agency levels. 

2. Responsibility for electronic publishing within agencies is decentralized, diffuse, and unclear. 

Some agencies either could not identify or had difficulty identifying the proper respondent within 

their own agency, or even the person who was responsible for a given public information product. 

 

50 U.S. Federal Publishers Committee and U.S. Interagency Council on Printing and Publications Services, Guide to Federal 

Publishing, Washington, DC: to be published early in 2001. 

51 The details of the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board proposal to the Commission are contained in 

documents at http://www.nclis.gov/info/gpo1.html.

52 Westat, Inc., op. cit. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-32 

3. Some government agencies are monitoring the information needs of their users to enhance current 

access to electronic government information products. 

4. There is a lack of specific planning for product development and technological migration, 

including dealing with the problem of safeguarding the preservation of government information in 

the face of hardware and software obsolescence. 

5. There is a lack of planning for or consideration of web design approaches that comply with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

6. The concept of "Permanent Public Access"53 is not well understood, in no small measure because 

it is not statutorily defined. Respondents also had difficulty distinguishing between this concept as 

it applies to public use of electronic information on the one hand and archiving electronic federal 

records pursuant to National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) regulations on the 

other hand. 

7. Metadata and their importance to public access are not well understood, particularly as they may 

affect permanent public access. Only 27% of respondents reported having a metadata record (such 

as the Government Information Locator Service or GILS record) for the products surveyed. 

8. There is a lack of understanding of what ensuring authenticity entails, and a lack of planning for or 

consideration of ensuring authenticity of electronic government information products. 

Then August 1999, in reaction to the proposed closure of the National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS) and the transfer of its functions, information holdings, and other resources to the Library of 

Congress, the Commission launched yet another study to recommend, at least in a preliminary fashion 

because of the time urgency involved, alternatives open to the President and the Congress to deal with 

"the NTIS matter." 

In her March 16, 2000 letter to the President and the Congress, NCLIS Chairperson Martha Gould 

offered four key recommendations:54

1. NTIS be retained in the Department of Commerce, at least temporarily for the balance of FY 2000 

and extending into FY 2001, in order to give the Commission, assisted by a broad group of both 

public and private sector stakeholders, enough time to study thoroughly the pros and cons, and 

costs and benefits, of a small number of feasible alternatives, including (but not limited to) the one 

formally announced by former Secretary of Commerce Secretary Daley in August 1999 (i.e., 

transfer NTIS collections to the Library of Congress). 

2. The Department of Commerce be allowed to utilize the $4.5 million included in its Supplemental 

FY 2000 budget request (the NTIS Revolving Fund account) to keep NTIS operational for the 

remainder of FY 2000 at a satisfactory level of staffing and service, instead of using those funds to 

further downsize and close the agency. 

 

53 The term "Permanent Public Access" was used in the Westat survey (Westat, Inc., op. cit.). The Commission uses the 

phrase "Permanent Public Availability" in lieu of "Permanent Public Access" throughout this report because it more 

accurately reflects the fact that both availability and accessibility must be permanent, not just accessibility. Availability refers 

to the basic entitlement of the people to government information not otherwise restricted from disclosure by statute. 

Accessibility refers to how the public searches for, locates and retrieves the information. There is a substantial amount of 

agency-initiated information which is available to the public under FOIA and other statues, which is not disseminated, an 

therefore not accessible, to the public. "Permanent Public Availability" as defined and used in this report includes both 

availability and accessibility. This issue is discussed more fully in the section entitled A Working Definition of Public 

Information. It is also addressed in Findings 1.A, 3.A, 3.C and 5.D and elsewhere in the report. 

54 These recommendations are from the transmittal letter included in U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information 

Science, Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), op. cit. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-33 

3. The Congress should authorize an appropriation of $5 million55 (the estimated funding level 

required for a full fiscal year) for FY 2001 to sustain NTIS operations at a necessary satisfactory 

level of service, and allow the Commission to complete its in-depth analysis. 

4. Ensure that the final decision on how best to deal with the NTIS situation is not made exclusively 

on the narrower, fiscally-driven ground of preventing NTIS from falling into a deficit because of 

the 1992 PL 102-245 Section 3704(b)-1 requirement that operating costs should be recovered 

primarily through the collection of fees. As important as that consideration is, the government 

must also take into account the larger question of how, in the Information Age, we can strengthen 

government information dissemination to the public, to private industry to enhance U.S. 

competitiveness, and to the U.S. scientific research communities. Inter-related concerns of 

permanent public accessibility, permanent records retention, preservation of materials, and 

authentication of official government holdings must also be addressed. The government must also 

consider the magnitude and consequences of shifting costs from end-users to Federal agencies 

(and therefore the taxpayer) as public access to Federal websites accelerates. 

Within weeks of the Commission's publishing its report on NTIS in March 2000, Commission 

Chairperson Gould received a letter from Chairman John McCain of the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, asking NCLIS "to undertake a review of the reforms 

necessary for the federal government's information dissemination practices." The letter goes on to say: 

At a minimum, this review should include assessments of the need for: 

1. Proposing new or revised laws, rules, regulations, missions, and policies; 

2. Modernizing organizational structures and functions so as to reflect greater 

emphasis on electronic information planning, management, and control 

capabilities, and the need to consolidate, streamline, and simplify missions and 

functions to avoid or minimize unnecessary overlap and duplication; 

3. Revoking (the) NTIS self-sufficiency requirement; and 

4. Strengthening other key components of overall federal information dissemination 

infrastructure. 

You are also requested to provide specific recommendations on the future of NTIS. It 

is hopeful that these recommendations would be consistent with any overall federal 

information dissemination recommendations that you would also provide.56

On July 17, 200, Chairperson Gould received a letter from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of the Senate 

Committee on Governmental Affairs,57 indicating that he was "writing to join in Senator McCain's 

June 12 request for a review of reforms to improve the federal government's information dissemination 

practices." He stated: 

The results of that study will prove invaluable to my work as Ranking Democrat of 

the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over most of our federal 

 

55 This estimate for the required annual appropriation was provided by NTIS as part of the Commission's earlier study. The 

specific purposes for which it is to be utilized, along with the exact amount required, must be verified before final numbers 

are presented to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

56 Senator McCain's letter is available in Appendix 1 and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/mccain.html and 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen1.pdf. 57 Senator Lieberman's letter is available in Appendix 3 and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/liebermn.html and 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen3.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-34 

government's information dissemination practices. The study will also help inform my 

efforts to promote e-government, which includes making federal information more 

available over the Internet. 

Senator Lieberman then suggested: 

I would suggest two additions to the Commission's study. Senator McCain's letter of 

June 12 asked that the Commission include assessments of the need for proposing new 

or revised laws or regulations. I would ask the Commission to include in that review 

any relevant sections of the Paperwork Reduction Act that may need revision, because 

the Committee will be considering the law's reauthorization next Congress. Second, 

when the Commission considers the future of the National Technical Information 

Service, I would ask that it consider the viability of maintaining NTIS as a centralized 

fully electronic repository of federal scientific and technical information, accessible 

via the Internet and equipped with search and retrieval capabilities. 

 

From March through June 2000, when the Commission was planning and organizing for this study 

effort, contact was also made with key House committee staff liaison officials with whom the 

Commission had already dealt extensively in the context of its two earlier studies, to ensure that the 

House was not in disagreement with the Senate's request. The Commission was advised that there 

were no objections to proceeding along the lines suggested by the two senators. 

WHAT THIS REPORT IS ABOUT, AND WHAT IT IS NOT ABOUT 

It is always important to carefully delineate the boundaries of complex deliberations of this kind. The 

requirement to specify one's scope with as much precision as possible is especially important when it 

comes to the area of disseminating government information to the public, because the area is so very 

broad and complex. There are hundreds of laws involved, thousands of federal programs with some 

requirement for disseminating or providing access to the public for government information, and tens 

of thousands of policy statements at all levels of government. 

This report is about recommending reforms to the basic machinery government employs to ensure the 

public has efficient access to, and is regularly advised of its workings through proactive dissemination 

initiatives, consistent with the agencies missions. In short, it is about the general and fundamental 

laws, policies, programs, and practices by which government information is made available and 

accessible to the public, including both "passive" access arrangements, and "proactive" dissemination 

arrangements.58 

While the Commission's investigations inevitably touched upon various "specialized areas," still, the 

Commission tried to keep its eye on the main target and not wander too far a field into those 

specialized areas, except in the few instances where addressing one of them was completely 

unavoidable, such as Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act pertaining to access to public information 

by disadvantaged individuals, and in the study of scientific and technical information (STI) because of 

the direct focus of the NTIS study (including an economic analysis). 

"Specialized areas" mean, for example: 

1. Computer and telecommunications security matters. 

 

58 This issue is also discussed in Findings 1.A and 4.K and elsewhere in the report. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-35 

2. Intellectual copyright issues, including patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. 

3. Privacy concerns. 

4. Information interchange with foreign governments, including technology transfer. 

5. Confidentiality issues related to the government's custodial role of third party information 

holdings. 

6. Technical standards questions such as encryption and electronic signatures. 

7. Observing and measuring information productivity, and the treatment of information as an 

economic good or commodity. 

8. Technical questions relating to the interoperability and interconnectivity of systems and networks. 

9. Replacement of actual data with simulated data in federal statistical data files. 

10. Linguistic, socio-cultural, and related barriers. 

11. Information ethics questions. 

12. Electronic financial and business information interchange such as electronic funds transfer (EFT). 

13. An historical review of prior public information dissemination reform initiatives. 

14. Detailed economic analyses of benefits and costs related to government information. 

15. Emergencies such a natural disasters and power outages. 

Of course, all of these areas are undeniably important, and it could be argued that they are, in a larger 

sense, inseparable from and inextricably linked to each other, as well as to the "general" issues of 

reforming public information dissemination laws, programs, and policies. However, the Commission 

resisted being drawn into addressing them in depth, not because it was ignorant or naïve in these 

respects, but because it did want to risk losing sight of the broader aims of the study. Instead, the 

Commission’s expectation was that these questions of "proper policy balance" to ensure that various 

competing vested interests in information rights and obligations, as for example in the intellectual 

property and privacy areas, are heard loudly and clearly, would and should best be taken up later, in 

the context of Congressional committee hearings, the public’s reactions to report findings and 

recommendations, stakeholder group comments on the final report, reactions of the media, and in 

other forums and arenas. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-36 

C. METHODOLOGY 

NCLIS determined that the best approach to satisfying the requests from Senator McCain and Senator 

Lieberman would be to maximize the utilization of both public sector and private sector knowledge by 

asking for volunteer assistance from both sectors. 

FOURTEEN MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE STUDY 

The approach agreed upon has fourteen major components: 

1. Establish four study panels and ask each to address one of four overarching aspects of the overall 

study.59

2. Create a Group of Experts composed of distinguished public figures with national reputations and 

special expertise and experience in an area of strategic importance to the study, such as 

information law, information economics, information science and technology, librarianship, public 

policy, and private sector contributions to value-added dissemination of government information.60

3. Informally survey a cross-section of federal agencies to establish a "baseline" of agency policies 

and programs relating to the dissemination of government information.61

4. Informally survey a cross-section of associations representing the interests of disabled, 

disadvantaged and special populations, which depend heavily on government information to 

service the needs of their constituents (e.g., to meet the requirements of Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act).62

5. Update a compilation of all federal laws containing requirements directing agencies to establish 

some kind of information resource to respond to public information needs, first undertaken in 

1996 by the Congressional Research Service.63

6. "Map" selected federal laws and policies containing public information resources requirements so 

as to illuminate the richness and diversity of those resources and help pinpoint where they might 

be strengthened.64

7. Ask the School of Information Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh to update its National 

Information Policies Bibliography database.65

 

59 The Commission panel participants are identified in Appendix 22 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen22.pdf. 60 The Commission experts are identified in Appendix 22 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen22.pdf. 61 The results from the agency survey are summarized in Appendix 27 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen27.pdf. 62 The results from the survey of organizations representing special populations are summarized in Appendix 28 in Volume 3 

of this report and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen28.pdf. 63 Appendix 33 in Volume 3 of this report describes categories of public information laws and provides an index of recent 

federal statutes on public information dissemination. The categories of public information legislation are also available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/statcat.html. Appendix 35 in Volume 4 is a compilation of recent federal statutes pertaining 

to public information dissemination, with excerpts of relevant provisions. Appendices 33 and 35 are also available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen33.pdf and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen35.pdf, respectively. 

64 The Public Information Resources Maps prepared by FLICC and GODORT are available in available as Appendix 29 in 

Volume 3 of this report and at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen29.pdf. Individual maps can also be accessed 

from http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 65 The bibliography compiled by Commission consultants is available as Appendix 31 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen31.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-37 

8. Revisit the NCLIS 1982 Public-Private Sector Task Force Report,66 update it, and republish it for 

study participants as well as for broader government and public use.67

9. Communicate and meet with representatives of key federal major public information resources 

entities, including key Congressional Committee representatives in both the Senate and the House, 

representatives from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and other elements of the 

Judiciary, and, in the Executive Branch, Access America and National Partnership for Reinventing 

Government (NPRG), FirstGov developers, the CIO Council, the Library of Congress, the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), the Government Printing Office (GPO) including 

the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), the National Information Infrastructure Advisory 

Council (NIIAC), and various interagency committees and councils such as CENDI, the Federal 

Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC), the Interagency Committee for Statistical 

Policy (ICSP), the Interagency Council on Printing and Publications Services (ICPPS), the Federal 

Publishers Committee (FPC), the Federal Webmasters' Forum, and so on. 

10. Communicate and meet with public interest groups, especially those that deal heavily with 

government information, such as the Association of Public Data Users (APDU) and Americans 

Communicating Electronically (ACE). 

11. Communicate and meet with library and information professional associations, including the 

American Library Association (ALA), the Special Libraries Association (SLA), the Association of 

Research Libraries (ARL), the Association of College Research Libraries (ACRL), the Chief 

Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA), the Urban Libraries Council (ULC), the American 

Association of Law Libraries (AALL), the Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) of the 

ALA, the Public Library Association (PLA), the Association of Independent Information 

Professionals (AIIP), and others. 

12. Research past and current studies touching about reforms of the government's public information 

dissemination laws, policies, programs, and practices, and determine where their findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations intersected with the current study's goals and objectives, 

paying special attention to the Congressionally-mandated studies running more or less 

concurrently with the extant NCLIS study, (1) of the merits of transferring the Superintendent of 

Documents programs in GPO to the Library of Congress, and (2) an intensive study of the NTIS 

missions, functions, and financing by the General Accounting Office. 

13. Solicit "white papers" (issue papers) on selected major issues and concerns relevant to the study, 

including the myths that surround the Internet and the World Wide Web, the reinvigoration of the 

Information Life Cycle Management concept, and the feasibility of establishing a new Public 

Information Resources Administration;68 and 

14. Update and broaden the bibliography prepared by the preliminary assessment the Commission 

completed in March 2000, addressing alternatives for dealing with the proposed closure of NTIS.69

 

66 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction in Providing 

Information Services, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1982. 

67 Appendix 17 in Volume 3 of this report is a retrospective appraisal of the 1982 report by Robert Hayes, the chairman of 

the NCLIS Public Sector/Private Sector Task Force. It is also available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen17.pdf. The complete 2000 edition of Public Sector/Private Sector Interaction 

in Providing Information Services is available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/publpriv.html.

68 Several White Papers were prepared by NCLIS consultants or submitted by others. They are available as Appendices 15 

through 21 in Volume 3 of this report and also from http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html as individual PDF files 

named http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen15.pdf, http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen16.pdf, etc. 

69 The bibliography compiled by Commission consultants is available as Appendix 31 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen31.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-38 

ASSESSMENT MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE 

A chronology of study milestones is provided below: 

Period Milestone 

March 2000 Report Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of 

NTIS issued to the President and the Congress by NCLIS 

June/July 2000 Congressional request for assessment; communications with 

Congress, the Executive Branch, the Judiciary, and 

stakeholder groups participating about the assessment 

Early August 2000 Establishment of four panels and identification of group of 

experts, solicitation of citations to key background research 

Late August through October 2000 Panels deliberate; NCLIS concurrent research activities 

undertaken 

October 15, 2000 Panel Final Reports received and disseminated for Group of 

Experts and public review and comment 

November 1, 2000 NCLIS begins drafting final "integrated" (consolidated) report 

November 15, 2000 Full Commission meets to hear panel reports; review Experts' 

comments; review public comments; and consider 

Commission's first draft of Executive Summary & proposed 

legislation 

November 16, 2000 Draft Executive Summary, draft excerpted sections from 

proposed legislation, fact sheet on Federal Depository Library 

Program, and fact sheet on parallel branch of government 

recommendations, all posted to NCLIS website 

November 27, 2000 First draft of full, complete NCLIS final report, including 

proposed new legislation, posted on the NCLIS website for 

public review and comment 

December 4, 2000 NCLIS Public Meeting, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 

hosted by Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 

December 11, 2000 Original deadline for public review and comment on draft 

final report 

December 15, 2000 Original deadline for submission of final report to Congress 

January 4, 2001 Extended deadline for public review and comment on draft 

final report and proposed legislation (extended from 

December 11 at the request of the Senate) 

January 26, 2001 Extended deadline for submission of the final report to 

Congress (extended from December 15 at the request of the 

Senate and the Administration); pre-print copies available for 

distribution to Congress, the Administration and key 

stakeholders; electronic copy posted on NCLIS website 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-39 

STUDY PANEL DELIBERATIONS 

To help the Commission in its investigations, four study panels and one group of experts were 

established.70 The four panels were: 

1. Panel 1 (NTIS Business Model)—Reforming the NTIS business model for the Internet Age; 

2. Panel 2 (Internal Government Reforms)—The extent to which internal (i.e., individual mission 

agency needs) for NTIS, GPO, NARA, the national libraries, and other central service bureau 

types of information services are not being adequately satisfied because of deficient, outmoded, 

obsolete or unresponsive laws, programs, policies, or practices; 

3. Panel 3 (External User Needs)—The extent to which external (i.e., non-governmental) user needs 

for NTIS, GPO, NARA, national library, & other central government information services, as well 

as individual mission agency public information services are not being adequately satisfied 

because of deficient, outmoded, obsolete, or unresponsive laws, programs, policies, or practices; 

user needs include: private corporations; institutions such as universities, research organizations 

and hospitals; library and other intermediary distributors of public information (including public, 

state, academic, research, depository and special libraries); public interest groups; and individual 

citizen needs; and 

4. Panel 4 (Public sector-Private Sector Partnerships)—Redefining and strengthening publicprivate sector roles, partnerships, and initiatives vis-à-vis public access to, and dissemination of 

public information, given the advent of the World Wide Web, the Internet, and associated 

technological changes that are driving the Information Age. 

Four distinguished professional information experts with extensive public and private sector expertise 

and experience were asked to serve as chairs of the panels, and accepted the invitations. The panel 

chairs are: 

• Peter Urbach who chaired the Panel One effort dealing with recommending reforms of the NTIS 

business model. Now retired, his many-faceted contributions to the library and information 

profession in both the public and private sectors included a term as deputy director of the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS) and as a senior executive with Reed-Elsevier, a major 

commercial scientific and legal publisher. 

• Kurt Molholm who chaired Panel Two addressing steps to strengthen federal agency sharing of 

information to both help achieve their own missions more effectively as well as, in turn, help their 

agencies serve their own constituencies and clienteles more effectively. He currently serves as 

director of the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) and chairman of CENDI, a 

consortium of scientific and technical information intensive federal agencies. 

• Miriam Drake who chaired Panel Three reviewing actions to improve how the government 

disseminates its information to external groups, including private citizens, corporations, 

depository libraries, lower levels of government, academia, research institutions, and other 

sectors. She has provided a lifetime of leadership in the library and information communities 

including the presidency of the Special Libraries Association (SLA), as well as many key private 

sector assignments, and is currently dean of libraries for the Georgia Institute of Technology. 

• Wayne Kelley who chaired Panel Four, reviewing how the public and private sectors could 

continue their traditional role of helping the Nation disseminate government information 

efficiently, and in diverse formats and mediums, and to very diverse audiences with special needs 

 

70 Commission panel members are identified in Appendix 22 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen22.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-40 

by working together. Now retired, he has held key positions in both the public and private sectors, 

including service as the Superintendent of Documents at the Government Printing Office and as 

the publisher of Congressional Quarterly. 

Specifically, the study panels were asked to analyze the key issues and concerns falling within the 

scope of their respective panels (i.e., perhaps an outdated law, a poorly written or interpreted rule, an 

obsolete regulation, the need for a new policy, a poorly operating program, a deficient agency practice, 

or some combination thereof) by answering the following questions: 

• What is "wrong," deficient, not working as expected, or is out-of-date; and, if so, exactly how 

and why; conversely, are there "success stories," wherein something innovative is working 

especially well, and might be more widely followed? 

• What needs to be done to remedy the deficiency (i.e., the reform(s) needed); did the panel 

make certain assumptions in order to arrive at a recommended (preferred) course of action, 

and, if so, what are those assumptions? 

• What barriers and constraints exist, if any, to fully and effectively implementing the 

recommended reforms; and, conversely, what enabling actions (e.g., new legislation, parlaying 

the "success stories" of agency initiatives that are especially creative, innovative and effective) 

can be taken to create more positive conditions for strengthening the dissemination of 

government information to the public? 

• Should the reforms be subdivided, timeframe-wise, into short, medium, and long-term 

reforms, and, if so, how and what are those timeframes? 

Appendix 14 identifies some of the important issues and concerns the four panels were asked to 

address,71 including: 

• Try to assess the likely technological state-of-the-art capabilities in the short (two years or 

less), medium-term (two to five years) and long-term (beyond five years) timeframes that will 

impact the ability of the government to improve its public information dissemination programs 

and practices, including hardware, software, networks, and information interchange protocols. 

The Group of Experts is one source for useful advice on these issues. 

• Prepare and submit a draft final panel report to NCLIS with findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations. Ideally (but not mandatory) include the text, or at least an abstract, or "key 

points" for any proposed new or amended legislation, executive orders, rules or regulations, 

other kinds of policy statements (e.g., OMB circulars or bulletins, executive orders), or other 

requirements.72

As mentioned above, the panels were asked not just to look at the "negative side of the equation," that 

is, the deficiencies in current laws, policies, programs, and practices dealing with public information 

dissemination. They were also asked to look at the "positive side of the equation." That is, try to 

identify "success stories" where a law, program, policy, or practice is working particularly well, is 

innovative, perhaps is because it is interactive, perhaps because it is multimedia, or has a "multiplier 

impact," and therefore, for these and/or other reasons, could be more broadly emulated and replicated. 

Reviewing what is working well applies to both the public and private sectors, and especially where 

private sector practices might be adopted and adapted to the government's programs. 

 

71 Appendix 14 is in Volume 3 of this report; it is also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/appen14.pdf. 72 The four panel reports are available in Appendices 22 through 25 in Volume 3 of this report; they are also available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/appen22.pdf, http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/appen23.pdf, 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/appen24.pdf, and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/appen25.pdf, respectively. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-41 

Moreover, the findings and results of the deliberations of each of the four panels were then "crossfertilized, laterally and horizontally" and shared with each other as well as made available for public 

review and comment so that as wide a set of viewpoints as is possible was solicited. In short, NCLIS 

did not want the four panels to operate purely in "stovepipe,” or in a vacuum fashion." NCLIS found 

in its earlier study dealing with the NTIS closure that broad public participation, and the resultant wide 

stakeholder "back and forth" interaction, fostered a valuable climate for identifying both hidden facts 

and enlightened opinions. 

The Commission panelists were not asked to develop a consensus, but to provide their best advise, 

noting areas of agreement and disagreement. Participation of an individual in a Panel should not be 

interpreted to mean concurrence with every statement or recommendation of that Panel, unless the 

Panel report specifically notes unanimity. The Panel reports were extremely useful to the Commission. 

However, the Commission did not necessarily accept all of the Panel recommendations, nor was it 

constrained by areas of disagreement among the panelists. 

Neither the chairs nor the members on the Commission Panels were asked to endorse this final report, 

although they were asked to review it and provide comments to the Commission. This is also true of 

the Commission's group of experts identified below. Therefore, the participation of these individuals 

should not be construed as necessarily providing their imprimatur to the study findings, conclusions or 

recommendations. 

THE GROUP OF EXPERTS 

The group of experts was composed of nationally recognized, knowledgeable individuals in the fields 

of information and communications technologies, economics, legal matters, and perhaps other 

specialized technical fields, including especially the World Wide Web and the Internet, state-of-the-art 

online approaches, alternative ways of measuring and valuing both the benefits and costs of creating, 

adding value to, packaging, and making available and distributing government information resources 

to the public, and so forth. The group also assisted NCLIS in identifying myths, and predicting major 

future changes and paradigm shifts they perceive on the horizon. 

 

NCLIS forwarded a copy each of the four study panel reports to the group of experts for their review 

and comment and made available the White Papers and other material received during the course of 

the assessment. They were also asked to review the draft final report. 

The group of experts includes: 

• Christopher Burns, President, Christopher Burns Inc. 

• Edward A. Fox, Director, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) and 

Professor, Department of Computer Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

(Virginia Tech). 

• Robert M. Hayes, Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, 

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). 

• Donald Langenberg, Chancellor, University System of Maryland. 

• M. Stuart Lynn, Retired, and formerly Associate Vice President, Information Resources & 

Communications, Office of the President, University of California. 

• Deanna Marcum, President, Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR). 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-42 

• Raymond T. Nimmer, Leonard Childs Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center. 

• Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Dean, Vice President and Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, 

Chicago. 

• Ron Plesser, Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe LLP. 

• William H. Price, Retired, and Former Director, Foreign Affairs Information Center, Department 

of State. 

• Carol A. Risher, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Savantech, Inc. 

• Thomas Susman, Ropes & Gray. 

• Paul Uhlir, National Academy of Sciences. 

• Paul Zurkowski, Newspaper Editor, and former President, Information Industry Association. 

STAKEHOLDER GROUP PARTICIPATION 

All stakeholder groups were encouraged to seek participation in the work of all four of the panels, 

whether they represented public or private sector organizations or institutions. For example, there was 

no intention that the participation of library professionals be limited just to panel three dealing with 

external group needs for public information, or the participation of government agency representatives 

be limited just to panel two dealing with interagency sharing of government information, or the 

participation of private sector individuals be limited just to panels one or four. The Commissioned 

tried to foster a climate to maximize the opportunities for stakeholder representation and participation 

in both its panel work as well as in its various research activities. 

OTHER RESEARCH ELEMENTS OF THE STUDY 

There were several other key elements of the NCLIS study undertaken that were "over and above" the 

work of the four study panels and the Group of Experts. For example, the NCLIS Public-Private 

Sector Task Force report published in 1982 was republished with a new preface explaining why the 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations in the original report are still quite relevant nearly twenty 

years later, despite very significant interim technological developments. Also, some excerpts from key 

landmark studies of public information reforms, such as Informing the Nation, a report prepared by the 

Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1998, were included in the republished report. 

Former NCLIS Chairperson Charles Benton, former NCLIS Executive Director Toni Carbo, and 

former NCLIS Task Force Chairperson Robert Hayes all were consulted in the republication.73

Additionally, the following research activities were undertaken: 

• An update of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) review "Compilation of Statutes 

Authorizing Dissemination of Government Information to the Public" dated March 29, 1996, coauthored by Jane Bortnick Griffith, Harold C. Relyea and Frances A. Bufalo.74

 

73 A retrospective appraisal of the report by Robert Hayes is available as Appendix 17 in Volume 3 of this report and at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen17.pdf.

74 Appendix 33 in Volume 3 of this report describes categories of public information laws and provides an index of recently 

enacted public information dissemination statutes. The categories of public information legislation are also available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/statcat.html. Appendix 35 in Volume 4 of this report is a compilation of recent federal 

statutes pertaining to public information dissemination, with excerpts of relevant provisions. Appendices 33 and 35 are also 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-43 

• An update of the "National Information Policies Bibliography" published in 1996 by Dean Toni 

Carbo of the School of Information Sciences of the University of Pittsburgh, including the newly 

acquired document collection from former Congressional Research Service (CRS) senior 

information policy specialist Robert Chartrand.75

• An informal survey of a small number of selected federal agency public information 

dissemination programs and practices, including agency websites, classified by agency type such 

as cabinet department, regulatory agency, etc., by subject matter coverage, by special interests 

targeted, and so forth.76

• An informal survey of selected associations with memberships composed of disabled, 

disadvantaged and special populations with substantial needs for public information, including a 

review of the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.77

• A review of the earlier Westat study, commissioned by the Government Printing Office, 

completed in 1999, which addressed the rapid proliferation of electronic formats and mediums to 

which ink-on-paper and other pre-electronic government information products were being 

migrated to electronic modes, to ensure NCLIS would be fully aware of the state-of-the-art federal 

IT situation.78

• A reassessment of the Phase I study undertaken by Computer Science and Telecommunications 

Board (CSTB) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for NCLIS, to ensure the original 

work plan suggestions made by that body were still appropriate, timely, and valid; is currently 

dean of libraries for the Georgia Institute of Technology.79

• Acceptance of opportunities to solicit materials from, brief, and meet with representatives of 

various key federal players with major public information dissemination authorities and 

responsibilities, including the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council, Access 

America and the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPRG), the FirstGov.gov 

portal initiatives including the Council for Excellence in Government, the Government Printing 

Office (GPO) including the Federal Depository Library Program and Superintendent of 

Documents Sales Program and GPO Access portal, Library of Congress and the Thomas portal as 

well as other Library of Congress programs such as the National Library for the Blind and 

Physically Handicapped, the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and the FedWorld 

portal, various interagency groups such as CENDI, the Federal Library and Information Center 

Committee (FLICC), the Interagency Committee on Statistical Policy (ICSP) and the Interagency 

Council on Printing and Publications Services (ICPPS). 

• Acceptance of opportunities to solicit materials from, brief, and meet with representatives from 

public information user groups such as Americans Communicating Electronically (ACE) and the 

Association of Public Data Users (APDU). 

 available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen33.pdf and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen35.pdf, 

respectively. 

75 The revised bibliography compiled by Toni Carbo is available as Appendix 32 in Volume 3 of this report and at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen32.pdf. 76 The results of the agency survey are available as Appendix 27 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen27.pdf.

77 The results of the survey or organizations representing special populations are summarized in Appendix 28 in Volume 3 of 

this report and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen28.pdf.

78 Westat, Inc., op. cit. 

79 Blumenthal, Marjory S., and Alan S. Inouye. Assessment of Formats and Standards for the Creation, Dissemination, and 

Permanent Accessibility of Electronic Government Information Products: Phase I, Report to the U.S. National Commission 

on Libraries and Information Science from the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research 

Council, National Academy of Science, Washington, DC: 16 July 1997; http://www.nclis.gov/govt/gpo1.html.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-44 

• Acceptance of opportunities to solicit materials from, brief, and meet with professional library 

associations including the American Library Association (ALA), Special Libraries Association 

(SLA), Association for Research Libraries (ARL), Association for College Research Libraries 

(ACRL), Public Library Association (PLA), American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), 

Medical Library Association (MLA), Urban Libraries Council (ULC) and the Chief Officers of 

State Library Agencies (COSLA), the Association of Independent Information Professionals 

(AIIP), and others. 

• Meetings with representatives of the CIO Council and some of its committees, especially those 

with responsibilities touching upon public information creation, handling, storage, retrieval, 

dissemination, archiving, and so forth, including "overseeing" the FirstGov.gov and e-Gov 

initiatives. 

• Preparation of a comprehensive study bibliography which would incorporate base materials 

already inventoried in connection with the Commission's earlier materials.80

• Preparation of a "Public Information Resources Map" which could serve as template and a tool to 

dramatize and illustrate the richness and diversity of the federal government's public information 

resources in terms of attributes such as entitlement, regulatory or other topical area, the targeted 

entitlement or regulated groups and beneficiaries, how the resource is financed (e.g., 

appropriations, revolving funds, the sale of public information), whether fees are charged for a 

public information product or service, or whether it is free to the public, and so forth.81 

• Preparation of various White Papers (issue papers) on selected topics, including a paper on "Major 

Paradigms: Myths, Realities, and Debunking the Myths," another on "The World Wide Library," 

another on "Information Life Cycle Management," and others.82

 FINAL REPORT TO THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT 

NCLIS received inputs for its final report throughout the course of the study from: 

1. The four study panels. 

2. The group of experts. 

3. Review of the various research activities, including literature reviews, the database of current 

information laws, and so on. 

4. A survey of federal agency public information dissemination policies, programs and practices. 

5. A survey of the public information needs of special and disadvantaged populations. 

6. Meetings with representatives from the CIO Council and its sub-committees, and other key 

interagency groups including the Federal Publishers Committee (FPC), the Interagency Council on 

Printing and Publications Services (ICPPS), the Federal Library and Information Center 

Committee (FLICC), the Federal Webmasters Forum, the Interagency Committee on Statistical 

 

80 The bibliography compiled by NCLIS consultants is available as Appendix 31 in Volume 3 of this report and at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen31.pdf.

81 The Public Information Resources Maps prepared by FLICC and GODORT are available in available as Appendix 29 in 

Volume 3 of this report and at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen29.pdf. Individual maps can also be accessed 

from http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 82 NCLIS consultant White Papers are available in Appendices 15 and 16 in Volume 3 of this report. White Papers submitted 

by members of the NCLIS group of experts are available in Appendices 17 through 21 in Volume 3. The White Papers are 

also available from http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html as individual PDF files named 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen15.pdf, http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen16.pdf, etc. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-45 

Policy (ICSP), CENDI, the Federal Depository Library Council, and with key agencies such as 

OMB, GPO, NTIS, NARA, and the Library of Congress. 

7. Meetings with library and information professional associations, including American Library 

Association (ALA), American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), Special Libraries 

Association (SAL), Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA), American Society for 

Information Science and Technology (ASIST), Association of Research Libraries (ARL), 

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), Urban Libraries Council (ULC), Public 

Library Association (PLA), the Association of Independent Information Professionals (AIIP), and 

others, and with other societies concerned with utilizing public information, including scientific 

and technical societies; 

8. State, local, and tribal government officials, including library and information professional 

associations with memberships at those levels of government; 

9. Private sector groups including trade and industry associations, labor unions, and others, including 

the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), the Software and Information Industry 

Association (SIIA), the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and the 

American Association of Publishers (AAP). 

10. Public information user groups, including Americans Communicating Electronically (ACE) and 

the Association of Public Data Users (APDU). 

11. Public responses to NCLIS website postings, and other relevant websites including, notably, the 

new e-Gov website launched by the Senate Governmental Affairs committee. 

12. Scanning various listservs and checking bulletin boards that were tracking the issues and concerns 

addressed by the study. 

13. Other sources, such as unsolicited communications. 

Because several of the recommendations, and the subject matter itself, affect the Judicial Branch, the 

report is also being transmitted to senior officers in that Branch, including the Clerk of the Supreme 

Court, the Judicial Conference, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 

USING THE NCLIS WEBSITE AND STUDY WEB PAGE 

The vehicle of the NCLIS website was once again used as a primary communications and coordination 

vehicle for securing wide involvement and participation, and obtaining public review and comment at 

key stages as the study proceeded and dissemination of draft and final documents as they became 

available. Notices were posted to a number of listservs and sent by e-mail to several hundred 

individuals and organizations that had asked to be notified as key documents became available. This 

same approach was followed in the two earlier Commission studies.83 

The Commission endeavored to follow a "Government in the Sunshine" policy by maximizing the 

opportunities to solicit broad public review and comment at each step in the study. 

 

83 Appendix 34 in Volume 3 of this report is a copy of the Commission's study web page as of January 26, 2001. It is also 

available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen34.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-46 

ORGANIZATION OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The findings and conclusions of this study are subdivided into eleven categories, based on the sector 

or group to which a finding is primarily targeted; of course, some overlap between categories is 

inevitable. 

1. Individual Citizens (the General Public) 

2. Disabled, Disadvantaged and Other Special Populations 

3. The Federal Government—Government-Wide Public Information Policy and Standards 

Leadership and Oversight 

4. The Federal Government—Individual Agencies With Operating Missions 

5. The Federal Government—Central Agencies With Government-wide Public Information Services 

and Information Management Roles (Except NTIS) 

6. The Federal Government—The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

7. The Federal Government—Interagency Groups (e.g., CIO Council, Federal WebMasters Forum, 

CENDI, FLICC and Others) 

8. State, Local, and Tribal Levels of Government 

9. Commercial (For-Profit) Enterprises and the Professions 

10. Not-For-Profit Sector, Including Professional Associations, as well as Academic, Research and 

Related Institutions 

11. All Other Groups 

 

Public Information Dissemination Machinery—Functional Categories

Within each of the above eleven major categories, individual findings may require new or amended 

laws, rules, regulations, and so forth. These are called functional categories, of which there are nine 

principal ones: 

• Laws 

• Rules and Regulations 

• Policies 

• Presidential Directives (e.g., Executive Orders, Presidential Memoranda) 

• Standards and Guidelines 

• Programs 

• Projects 

• Practices 

These are identified, as appropriate, in the narrative, but are not called out by specific headings. 

Findings

The Findings are organized by the eleven categories identified above. Within each category, Findings 

are assigned an alphabetic identifier. Findings in category 1, Individual Citizens, are numbered 1.A, 

1.B, 1.C, and so forth. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-47 

Conclusions 

The Conclusions section follows the Findings section. It is structured into the same eleven major 

categories as the Findings section, but there is only one summary conclusion statement for each of the 

eleven categories. Subheadings are used when the discussion is lengthy or complex. 

Recommendations

The Recommendations section follows the Conclusions. It is arranged by degree of importance, rather 

than by the eleven categories identified above. There are two general classes of recommendations: 

Strategic Recommendations and Other Recommendations. However, the Recommendations are 

numbered consecutively in a single sequence across both classes. 

Following each recommendation is a statement that identifies the supporting findings by number and 

letter, with the principal finding boxed for emphasis. For example, the supporting findings for 

Recommendation 1 are presented as follows: 

[Supporting Findings: 1.A, 1.D, 1.G, 1.I, 1.J, 2.B, 3.A, 3.B, 3.D, 4.A, 4.C, 4.O, 5.I, and 10.E] 

Timeframes For Addressing Recommendations

The reforms addressed in this report are far-reaching. The implementation timeframe, much less the 

timeframe in which the ultimate outcomes and results would be realized, extends from the immediate, 

in some cases, to ten or more years in other cases. The distinction between whether action on the 

recommendation should begin immediately, or should be deferred until some time in the future, is very 

important. The key criterion is when to begin implementation, even though it may not be completed in 

the timeframe. In fact, some actions may need to go on indefinitely. Therefore, the Commission has 

indicated which of three-timeframes is most appropriate for commencement of each recommendation: 

1. The Short-Term: begin within two years or less. 

2. The Medium-Term: begin in two to five years. 

3. The Long-Term: begin six years or later. 

Following the list of Supporting Findings for each Recommendation is a statement that identifies the 

suggested timeframe for action. For example, the timeframe for Recommendation 1 is presented as 

follows: 

[Timeframe: Short-Term] 

Legislative and Regulatory Proposals

For convenience, all findings, conclusions, and recommendations relating to the need for changes in 

existing legislation, such as the Paperwork Reduction Act, and OMB Circular A-130 are brought 

together in one place as Appendix 12 in Volume 2 of this report: Legislative and Regulatory 

Proposals.

84

 

84 Appendix 12 is in Volume 2 of this report; it is also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen12.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-48 

D. FINDINGS 

After considering all of the facts and opinions offered and collected, the Commission has developed 

the following findings. 

1. FINDINGS RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS (THE GENERAL PUBLIC) 

1.A. The enlightened participation of Americans in the democratic processes of our country lies 

squarely in how well ordinary citizens are informed as to what their government is doing, or not 

doing but should be doing. Proactive dissemination of government information to citizens in all 

walks of life is the key that enables them to have a voice in public affairs, enables them to hold 

public officials accountable for their actions, prevents their rights from being trampled upon, 

and empowers them to better meet their personal, family, business and job-related needs and 

goals, including matters pertaining to their health, safety, security, and enriching the quality of 

their lives. 

A popular government without 'popular information,' or the means of acquiring 

it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will 

forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors 

must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. 

James Madison, 1822

The enlightened participation of Americans in the democratic processes of our country requires a wellinformed citizenry that knows what their government is doing, or not doing that it should be doing. 

This applies to government at all levels, at all levels, federal, state, local, and tribal. Proactive 

dissemination of government information to citizens in all walks of life is the key that enables them to 

have a voice in public affairs, enables them to hold public officials accountable for their actions, 

prevents their rights from being trampled upon, and empowers them to better meet their personal, 

family, and business and job-related needs and goals, including matters pertaining to their health, 

safety, security, and enriching the quality of their lives. 

The words of James Madison are still the most apt and well-known summation of this issue. "A 

popular government without 'popular information,' or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a 

farce or tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean 

to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." 85

Julia Wallace, documents librarian at the University of Minnesota, spoke eloquently of on this issue in 

her article entitled "Why Government Information?" in DttP, saying: 

Although government publications are not the only source for this information, they 

are the first essential, authoritative, primary resources on which much other 

information is based. Government information is authoritative because it comes from 

a known source, which has the authority to collect it, and which generally provides 

detailed documentation of its methodology. In order to use the government's 

 

85 James Madison in a letter to W. T. Barry, August 4, 1822. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-49 

information, and to evaluate other information, which is based upon it, it must be 

easily available to all, without barriers.86

Because the government is the source of public information, the burden of independently assessing the 

credibility of the source of the information is largely obviated. Government must not betray the 

public's trust in its credibility. 

Information that may exist is not usable without the knowledge that it does exist in the first place, 

what it is called (without knowing its proper name it still remains hidden), what restrictions if any 

apply to its disclosure and use, how to find it, where to find it, how to retrieve it, how to discern 

whether or not it is authentic and official, and, most important of all, how to use it for their practical 

advantage. In general, people need information, not for the sake of the information itself, but because 

it is a means to an ends—obtaining an entitlement, finding a job, getting into a school, starting a 

business, retiring, retraining, mitigating a health problem, planning a trip, or even recreation. Proactive 

dissemination or knowledge diffusion models emphasize a two-way, interactive model between 

producer and user, whereas the traditional passive dissemination model emphasizes a one-way, 

producer-to-user approach. 

As the Commission will later endeavor to justify, while the existing basic statutory foundations for 

accessing government information, such as the FOIA and E-FOIA are necessary legal frameworks, 

they are insufficient mechanisms, and another public information access and dissemination statutory 

building block is needed.87 As Canada’s Information Commissioner’s recent annual report to the 

House of Commons said: 

In the cat-and-mouse game which persists between members of the public who want 

to see information and the officials who want them to see as little as possible, there are 

three hurdles which must be overcome by the information seekers: delay, excessive 

application of exemptions, and inability to find the requested records. The last is now 

the most worrisome hurdle. Information Management in the federal government is in 

such a sorry state that the term has almost become an oxymoron.88

The United States can be proud of its outstanding public domain and public interest information 

tradition, and the Commission does not want to see that tradition eroded, apparently as is already 

occurring with our neighbor to the North according to the foregoing quote in the Canadian Information 

Commissioner’s report to the Canadian House of Commons. 

1.B. Individual citizens are faced with considerable practical difficulties in knowing what 

government information exists that might help them, searching for it easily and cost effectively, 

and then understanding and utilizing it once located. 

Individual citizens are faced with very substantial barriers to even knowing whether or not government 

information that might help them even exists or not, and if it does exist, what kind of information is it, 

where it is located in the labyrinth of government agencies, whether it is available to them or there are 

 

86 Julia F. Wallace, op. cit. 87 This is not to say that the Administration has done little or nothing to improve public access in the context of E-FOIA. 

OMB Memorandum M-97 was issued on April 7, 1997, and an April 28, 1998, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive 

Agencies (available at http://www.cio.gov/docs/foia4-23.htm) provides additional guidance regarding more effective 

utilization of agency index and record locator system. 

88 Neil Burk, "You Can't Disclose What You Can't Find," Annual Report [of the] Information Commissioner, 1999-2000 [to 

the Senate and House of Commons], Ottawa: 2000, page 20. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-50 

restrictions on its availability, how can they search for and retrieve it, how to reliably authenticate it, 

and, finally, even if they succeed in surmounting all of those obstacles, will they know how to utilize it 

once it is found? Of course this problem has always existed to some degree, even in the pre-electronic 

era, but the advent of the Internet, bringing with it the enormous proliferation of web-availability of 

agency electronic information, has greatly exacerbated the problem. FirstGov is a step in the right 

direction, but this assessment will have much more to say about the need for very substantial further 

development of that portal before it becomes a practical tool. 

Agencies have assumed that by merely making the information electronically 

accessible, they thereby, somehow, relieve themselves of the obligation of 

disseminating the information proactively to the public. They incorrectly equate 

passive information access with proactive information dissemination. 

There are two challenges here, computer literacy and information literacy. In the electronic world, a 

users needs to know a great deal about the technology and software that is necessary to find and utilize 

the information. This is called computer literacy. To be computer literate, the individual needs to be 

able to answer questions like the following ones: 

• What format is the information in? 

• Do I have the compatible hardware and software to access the information? 

• Does the machine have enough memory, enough hard disk space, and a fast enough modem (or 

network connection)? 

• Why is the computer crashing when I try to open the document? 

• Can I print all or part of the information? 

In the electronic world, a user also needs to know a great deal about the information itself, including 

its authorship and source. This is called information literacy. To be information literate, the individual 

needs to be able to answer questions like the following ones: 

• Where is the information? Is it already in electronic form and on the Internet? 

• What information do I have (or need) in order to find what I am seeking: the exact name or title, 

the author's name, the publisher, the subject or some other information that will help be correctly 

identify the information? 

• Who has the information, and are they a reliable source? 

• Is the information authentic and authoritative? 

• Is it in a format that I can read or manipulate? 

• Is there someone who can assist me to get the answers to these questions if I don't already know 

them? 

Thus the user is faced with the need for basic computer and information literacy skills, as well as the 

special skills related to understanding and using public information. This is not simply a challenge of 

knowing which agency houses the information sought, it is a challenge fraught with other 

complications, such as needing to know: 

• Whether the information still under an agency’s control, or has been already transferred to the 

National Archives. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-51 

• If the information is subject to non-disclosure because of a statutory exception or exemption, such 

as those prescribed in the FOIA and Privacy Acts. 

• Whether the information’s format and medium can be utilized by the user or not, or whether 

special, perhaps even proprietary software is required to search for, retrieve, and utilize it. 

As the Commission Panel Four on public sector/private sector partnerships said in its report: 

If the Federal government continues to adopt a distributed approach to government 

information—i.e., each agency develops a website for the distribution of its own 

information products and services—then the public, especially those with scant 

knowledge of the structure of the Federal government, will face difficulties in finding 

government information at the source. The first challenge for government, then, is to 

assure that the public can identify which agency might hold the information desired. 

The second challenge becomes navigating the agency's website, which can vary 

widely in complexity and user friendliness. To navigate them often requires an 

intimate knowledge of not only the agency's structure but it's internal terminology. It 

can be very difficult to find a specific item, even if the user knows its name. 89

There is a very high priority need, in short, for some kind of one stop, invisible or transparent "click 

through" or "pass through" government search engine that makes the foregoing considerations usertransparent and domain invisible. 

Moreover, in rushing to publish their public information products on the web, agencies have shifted 

the burdens and costs largely (but not exclusively) to the public for (1) even knowing what 

government information resources exist that could help them, and then (2) searching for and 

(hopefully) finding that information. In short, agencies have assumed that by merely making the 

information electronically accessible, they thereby, somehow, relieve themselves of the obligation of 

disseminating the information proactively to the public. They incorrectly equate passive information 

access with proactive information dissemination.90

The government must come to understand that merely making information 

electronically accessible on agency web pages does not relieve them on the 

responsibility of ensuring that their information is disseminated equitably and 

cost-effectively to the same publics they have always dealt with, even in the preInternet era. 

Access to government information by and at all levels of government is essential: 

• For the mobility of workers from low job opportunity areas to high opportunity areas. 

• For the ability to work at home and use distant learning (remote education) approaches. 

• For the ability to establish a new business or expand an existing business. 

• For the ability to get advice on how to cope with health, safety, security, or related concerns 

affecting themselves and their families. 

 

89 The final report from Commission Panel Four is available as Appendix 26 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen26.pdf.

90 A more complete discussion of proactive dissemination and passive access is provided in the section entitled "What This 

Report Is About and What It Is Not About. The issue is also discussed in Finding 4.K. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-52 

• To identify and fully understand applicable government rules and regulations affecting their 

planned purchase of commercial products and services insofar as those informed decisions depend 

on health, safety, security, and similar considerations. 

• To identify and fully understand applicable government rules and regulations relating to their 

planned application for federal benefits and entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare, 

educational assistance, and so on. 

• To undertake personal research for information, such as statistical comparisons, in order to enable 

more active community level involvement. 

• To identify and fully understand applicable government rules and regulations affecting their 

responsibilities to the government with regard to the filing of income and other taxes, compliance 

with government reporting and recordkeeping laws, and so forth. 

• To the ability of sole proprietorships and small businesses to identify and apply for assistance and 

benefits enabling them to secure new capital, identify markets, understand consumer behavior, and 

so forth. 

• To the ability of lower levels of government to interchange information with the federal level to 

avoid unnecessary overlap and duplication, and to strengthen state, local, and tribal government 

information outreach programs for their resident citizens. 

The government must come to understand that merely making information electronically accessible on 

agency web pages does not relieve them on the responsibility of ensuring that their information is 

disseminated equitably and cost-effectively to the same publics they have always dealt with, even in 

the pre-Internet era. As pointed out above, physical access is not the same thing as intellectual access. 

Moreover, it is sometimes argued that we are moving from a system of public information access to 

government information that is based on physical and tangible artifacts to one that is based on 

intangible, electronic artifacts and is both intellectual and experiential. 

Libraries must continue to play a critical local role in making sure that citizens have access to public 

information. They are regarded by many as the most convenient community electronic access and 

distribution points, with associated printing capability, for individuals that are unable to utilize 

computer and telecommunications capabilities at home, work or school.91 

In its response to the Commission's survey, the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons 

(AARP) stressed that moving from "offering simple, passive access to public information to actively 

getting it into the hands of individuals who need it" is extremely important. 

Other respondents expressed the fear that a proactive agency program for public information 

dissemination, along with an explicit agency information dissemination budget, could result in a 

misuse of agency resources to promote the agency and generate propaganda, rather than to reach out 

and inform the public. The Commission does not believe that constructive public policy should be 

thwarted by such fears, although it acknowledges that the fears exist. Furthermore, vigilant legislative 

oversight, carefully framed budgetary authorizations, and detailed policy guidance, including the 

aggressive use of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), are effective safeguards 

against such an unfortunate potential abuse. 

 

91 Benton Foundation, Local Places, Global Connections: Libraries in the Digital Age, Washington, DC: Benton Foundation, 

June 3, 1997; http://www.benton.org/Library/Libraries/home.html.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-53 

1.C. Individual users of government information are extremely diverse in terms of computer and 

information literacy skill levels, specific kinds of information needs, economic status, geography, 

and other demographic variables. 

General or public users of public information, other than the federal government itself, are extremely 

diverse in many respects, and include: 

• The citizenry at large. 

• Business and industry. 

• State, local, and tribal levels of government. 

• Scientists and engineers. 

• Practicing professionals such as health care practitioners, parents, teachers, librarians and online 

information specialists, consultants, legal professionals. 

• Rural populations. 

• Individual inventors, authors, composers, and artists. 

• Academic and research institutions. 

• Public interest groups. 

• Special interest groups dealing with safety in the workplace, environmental protection, ozone, and 

many other issues. 

• Individuals with disabilities and other special populations including those who are disadvantaged 

financially, geographically, medically, or who are otherwise unable to find and utilize general 

public information resources (the needs of this group are dealt with in Section 2 below). 

• Not-for-profit groups, including foundations. 

The machinery which government has established (the Federal Information Infrastructure) to respond 

to the needs of these quite diverse populations in not yet customized to the unique needs of each of 

these population groups. There is no "one size fits all" approach to meeting overall public wants and 

needs for government information. There cannot be one solution for all users, nor should there be. 

Moreover, both the public and the private sectors, including the not-for-profit sector, all have 

important roles in helping end users find, obtain, and utilize public information resources. 

For example, each citizen has a variety of professional, work related, and personal and family 

information needs. The availability of accurate and timely information often can often mean the 

difference between success and failure, health and illness, learning or ignorance, and economic growth 

or stagnation. Information has no real value until it is used for some end purpose. That purpose may be 

purely self-enlightenment or recreation. 

Information has little or no value when it is: 

• Not even known to exist. 

• Unavailable to the public, when it should be available. 

• Inaccessible to the public, when it should be accessible. 

• Not able to be efficiently searched for and retrieved by the public. 

• Not able to be used be used by the public because it is inaccurate, untimely, incomplete, unofficial, 

or its authenticity cannot be determined. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-54 

• Not available in a useful and usable format or medium. 

• Not able to be fully understood or reliably used by the public because its meaning and significance 

cannot be easily understood without knowing where and by whom the data was collected, how it 

was collected, the sample size, response rate, and so forth. In this regard the work of interagency 

committees such as the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), and the help of public 

interest user groups such as the Association of Public Data Users (APDU), is critical. 

1.D. Dramatic expansion of numbers of Internet surfers of government websites attests to the 

importance of federal, state, local, and tribal government electronic information resources as 

very important national assets. 

The availability of public information on the Internet has increased the number of users and uses of 

government information (at all levels of government) dramatically. The number of users directly 

accessing information on the Internet has increased many-fold. At the same time, the need for 

librarians and other information professionals has also increased because citizens are confronted with 

such a massive volume of disorganized materials that they cannot easily find what they are seeking, 

even if they are highly computer and information literate. Some have said that the Internet is currently 

like an “exploded library,” with card catalogs strewn all over the place. 

In their most recent annual review of the World Wide Web, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 

Inc., estimated (1) that the Web now contains about 7 million unique sites, which is almost a 50% 

increase over last year's estimate of 4.7 million sites; (2) that the "Public Web," that is, sites that offer 

content that is freely accessible by the general public, constitutes about 40% of the total Web; and (3) 

that the Web continues to expand at a rapid pace even though its rate of growth is diminishing over 

time. 

People need access to public information to learn about what their government is doing. They need 

access to a vast range of information to make their lives better. They need to know of potentially 

harmful situations and events such as air pollution conditions, dangerous storms, or faulty tires. 

Researchers, scholars, and product developers need ready and timely access to a wide variety of 

scientific, technical, and business-related information and data. The cost to citizens of not having 

information readily available cannot be calculated. 

Moreover, taxpayers have paid for the creation of this information and should be able to retrieve and 

use it. Federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies want to disseminate information easily and 

cheaply to their constituency publics, and share their information with other agencies easily at the 

same or different levels of government. The private sector, including libraries and educational 

institutions, as well as not-for-profit and for-profit organizations, needs to acquire public information 

and data in raw form so that they can add value and provide additional services to the public. 

Citizens require information from all levels of government: federal, state, local, and tribal. State, local, 

and tribal levels of government are both major public information providers for their respective 

constituencies, and at the same time users who need to efficiently interchange information with the 

federal level to minimize and avoid unnecessary overlap and duplication in the creation and use of 

government information resources. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-55 

1.E. FirstGov is a step in the right direction but has a long way to go before becoming fully 

effective. 

The announcement of the FirstGov portal initiative may be the first concrete step in the right direction 

to make government information available in a truly comprehensive, "yellow pages" approach. 

Announced September 22, 2000, FirstGov is intended to provide the public with easy, one-stop access 

to federal government online information and services.92 The FirstGov website, located at 

http://www.firstgov.gov, is intended to provide a single online information portal that connects 

Americans with federal information. FirstGov allows users to search all 27 million federal agency web 

pages at one time.93 It can search half a billion documents in less than one-quarter of a second and 

handle millions of searches a day. 

The website also provides access to the home pages of major agencies and entities in all three branches 

of government, a section that provides topics of current interest to web users (e.g., a direct link to the 

during hurricane season, to NASA during a shuttle launch, or to IRS during tax season), and key sites 

that access state and local government web pages. To increase efficiency, allow citizens to find 

information intuitively—by subject or by keyword. 

The search engine used by FirstGov is a significant technological contribution and a very important 

and versatile user tool. It is undeniably very fast and quite impressive. However, the search engine 

needs major improvements in ensuring that information retrieved is relevant to the user request. One 

key element is to develop an underlying thesaurus and taxonomy to insure that the user is getting 

closer to the information he or she wishes. Such tools should be linked to applications that help make 

searches context sensitive, such as through natural language or other applications. There are a variety 

of automatic and semi-automatic tools for vocabulary switching, and other functions that should be 

examined in this regard. 

Although FirstGov states that it provides access to all government online information, in fact it does 

not. Like other public access systems, FirstGov only covers information that has already been 

determined to be publicly available and therefore has been placed on agency websites. Furthermore, 

like other search engines, FirstGov cannot penetrate and index Adobe Acrobat PDF files and other 

proprietary file formats on agency websites, so it can index descriptions of such files that appear on 

web pages in HTML, but it cannot index the files themselves. Similarly, it does not penetrate 

databases accessed through agency websites. This limits the searchable content and therefore the 

efficacy of the retrieval. Furthermore, FirstGov cannot address public information that never was on 

government servers, but may be in agency files as paper or microfiche documents, or has been 

published on CD-ROM, nor can FirstGov provide access to files that have been removed from 

government servers, although the information may still exist in an electronic or a pre-electronic form, 

format, or medium somewhere at the agency. 

FirstGov also does not include enough granularity in its groupings to permit the sophisticated 

information retrieval capability needed by many government users. As pointed out above, information 

users come from many and diverse communities. FirstGov developers must be aware that there is a 

difference between the general categorization of information and the detailed indexing of information. 

Information is often categorized into general groups such as travel, medical, or chemistry. These may 

then be broken down in turn into subcategories (e.g., travel in the U.S., in Europe, in Africa). An 

example of general categorization is a table of contents. It leads a reader to a chapter or chapters that 

 

92 The White Paper providing a preliminary assessment of FirstGov is available as Appendix 19 in Volume 3 of this report 

and at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen19.pdf.

93 This is the number of accessible pages reported late in 2000. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-56 

may contain the desired information. Indexing, on the other hand, is much more specific and permits 

more specific information to be found. 94

Using both general categorization and indexing, a government-wide categorization of information is 

feasible, while still permitting the more specific identification needed by the organization originally 

creating the information and specialized users. Thus there is a need for taxonomies at some—or 

several—level(s). 

Categorization, classification, indexing, abstracting, cataloging, thesaurus development, preservation, 

and related techniques and methods are sometimes referred to as establishing "bibliographic control." 

They are the business of the librarian and information manager, and other information specialists such 

as preservation administrators. It should also be pointed out in this context that the private sector has 

an increasingly important role in assisting the public sector in this regard because it has pioneered in 

the development of many sophisticated technologies in the search and retrieval field. The expertise of 

these professionals can provide valuable assistance in the development and testing of First Gov. 

1.F. The Internet is a long way from being a library and, in any event, is unlikely to ever take the 

place of libraries. 

The Internet is not yet a library and, in any event, is unlikely to ever take the place of libraries. Instead, 

to the ordinary citizen, the Internet is currently at a stage in its evolution where it is a veritable jumble 

of information services and information resources that cannot be easily searched for, retrieved, or 

utilized. Therefore, librarians and other information specialists are in great demand to organize 

government information for both public and private sector information providers, to help people find 

what they need, and to help people evaluate and apply the information they find to their practical 

everyday challenges, including finding a government entitlement, applying for a student loan, finding 

a job, starting or expanding a business, researching a particular health care problem, and so forth. 

Indeed, there is an elite class of information specialists, government document librarians, whose 

unique and specialized skills are directed to helping citizens find the right public information, at the 

right time, and from the right place. In addition, there is a unique group of about 1,400 libraries across 

the country that specializes in housing, managing, and preserving government information for 

continuous public availability and access, namely federal depository libraries. 

In an interview with Washington Post staff writer Joel Achenbach in 1999, Librarian of Congress 

James Billington, a member of the Commission, is quoted as saying that he believes the library must 

play a role in saving the Internet from turning into a "dumb bunny domain, a mere offshoot of the 

audiovisual culture." "The Internet," according to Billington, "shortens attention spans, destroys the 

sentence, the foundation of the English language, with its diction-mangling chat rooms. And, he 

continues, the Internet is heavily skewed toward recent information, the latest data, with little trace of 

older material. A person might surf the Web for hours and not encounter anything written before 1995. 

It’s inherently destructive of memory. You think you’re getting lots more information until you’ve 

found out you’ve made a bargain with the devil. You’ve slowly mutated, and have become an 

extension of the machine." 

All libraries, not just federal depository libraries, have a critical role to play in the Internet Age. They 

serve on the information firing lines to help individuals who do not have the computer or 

telecommunication capabilities at home, at a neighbor’s or on the job, whatever the reasons may be. 

They serve individuals, even if they do have equipment, who do not have the requisite minimum 

 

94 Indexing is discussed further in Findings 1.G and 3.E. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-57 

computer and information literacy skills to find the public information they need. These are people 

who are on the wrong side of the Digital Divide. 

In a White Paper prepared for this assessment, Christopher Burns suggests that a promising alternative 

may be to link agency information collections and their catalogs in a "reciprocal access network"95

with a shared search engine and standard metadata.96 Such a design would allow users of one online 

library collection to access more precisely the collections of other libraries affiliated in a group that 

resembles the regional networks and shared catalogs of the traditional library community. Burns points 

out that when the interests and activities of a user group begin to diversify and the collection of 

documents of that group comes to include many different formats, the right architecture is not 

necessarily the traditional approach, which has been to put all materials into a single database. 

In his article on Resource Description Framework (RDF), Tim Bray says: 

Here's a subtle but important point—in theory, metadata is not really necessary: you 

could go through the library one book at a time looking for donkey books, or through 

the video store shelves until you found your movie, or call all the numbers in your 

area code until you find pizza delivery. But that would be very wasteful, in fact, it 

would be stupid. Metadata is the way to go. ... 

The problem at the moment is that there is hardly any metadata on the Web. So how 

do we find things? Mostly by using dumb, brute force techniques. The dumb, brute 

force is supplied by the wandering web robots of search engine sites like Altavista, 

Infoseek, and Excite. These sites do the equivalent of going through the library, 

reading every book, and allowing us to look things up based on the words in the text. 

It's not surprising that people complain about search results, or that the robots are 

always way behind the growth and change of the Web. 

In fact there is one metadata-based general purpose lookup facility: Yahoo! Yahoo 

doesn't use a robot. When you search through Yahoo, you're searching through 

human-generated subject categories and site labels. Compared to the amount of 

metadata that a library maintains for its books, Yahoo! is pitiful; but its popularity is 

clear evidence of the power of (even limited) metadata. 97

Bray goes on to say: 

People who have thought about these problems, including many librarians and 

webmasters, generally agree that the Web urgently needs metadata. What would it 

look like? If the Web had an all-powerful Grand Organizing Directorate (at 

www.GOD.org), it would think up a set of lookup fields such as Author, Title, Date, 

Subject, and so on. The Directorate, being, after all, GOD, would simply decree that 

all Web pages start using this divine Metadata, and that would be that. Of course there 

would be some details such as how the Web sites ought to package up and interchange 

 

95 The White Paper by Chris Burns is available in Appendix 18 and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen18.pdf.

96 Metadata is information about information, or data about data, e.g., an abstract and related indexing that describes a 

document, a cataloging record, or a bibliographic citation. 

97 Tim Bray, "What is RDF?" published on xml.com, January 24, 2001, 

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/01/24/rdf.html?page=1; updated by Dan Brickley from "RDF and Metadata," published on 

xml.com in June 1998, http://www.xml.com/pub/a/98/06/rdf.html. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-58 

the metadata, and we all know that the Devil is in the details, but GOD can lick the 

Devil any day.98

In his book, The Age of Intelligent Machines, Raymond Kurzweil quotes a “view from the future 

looking back at our present” by the distinguished futurist and artificial intelligence expert, Marvin 

Minsky. Professor Minsky asks, " Can you imagine that they used to have libraries where the books 

didn’t talk to each other?" He then goes on to say: 

The libraries of today are warehouses for passive objects. The books and journals sit 

on shelves waiting for us to use our intelligence to find them, read them interpret 

them, and cause them finally to divulge their stored knowledge. Electronic libraries of 

today are no better. Their pages are pages of data files, but the electronic pages are 

equally passive. Now imagine the library as an active, intelligent knowledge server. It 

stores the knowledge of the disciplines in complex knowledge structures (perhaps in a 

knowledge representation formalism yet to be invented. It can reason with this 

knowledge to satisfy the needs of its users. The system can, of course, retrieve and 

exhibit (i.e., it can act as an electronic textbook). It can collect relevant information; it 

can summarize it; it can pursue relationships. It acts as a consultant on specific 

problems, offering advice on particular solutions, justifying those solutions with 

citations or with a fabric of general reasoning. If the user can suggest a solution or a 

hypothesis, it can check this and even suggest extensions. Or it can critique the user 

viewpoint with a detailed rationale of its agreement or disagreement. It pursues 

relational paths of associations to suggest to the user previously unseen connections. 

Collaborating with the user, it uses its processes of association and analogizing to 

brainstorm for remote or novel concepts. More autonomously, but with some guidance 

from the user, it uses criteria of being interesting to discover new concepts, methods, 

theories, and measurements. The user of the library of the future need not be a person, 

but may be another knowledge system, that is, any intelligent agent with a need for 

knowledge. Thus, the library of the future will be a network of knowledge systems in 

which people and machines collaborate. Publishing will be an activity transformed. 

Authors may bypass text, adding their increment to human knowledge directly to the 

knowledge structures. Since the thread of responsibility must be maintained, and since 

there may be disagreement as knowledge grows, the contributions are authored 

(incidentally allowing for the computation of royalties for access and use). 

Maintaining the knowledge base (updating knowledge) becomes a vigorous part of the 

new publishing industry.99

1.G. Helping the public find government information is more critical than it ever was because of 

the vastness of newly available electronic public information resources. 

The question of whether electronic information can be located without cataloging, indexing, or 

offering access at the document level is a critical consideration, since it directly relates to the full costs 

that must be associated with, and budgeted for, to provide public access to government information. 

By comparison, finding information at the broad, generic level is far easier. 

Federal agencies should not be expected to provide an equal level of access to all kinds of 

information—especially if providing this information without adequate summarizing, abstracting and 

 

98 Tim Bray, "What is RDF?" published on xml.com, January 24, 2001, 

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/01/24/rdf.html?page=2.

99 Raymond Kurzweil, The Age of Intelligent Machines, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990, page 328. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-59 

indexing/metadata, created at considerable cost, means that it is only added to a "mountain of digital 

objects" that users will have to wade through. Hundreds of thousands of "hits" are almost worse than 

no hits at all. 

The private sector and libraries have traditionally filled an important role in adding value to public 

information by collecting, cataloging, abstracting and indexing, digitizing and providing public access 

to public information. There is no evidence to suggest that their ability to serve the public through 

such services has become obsolete. In fact, the government itself frequently buys back its own 

information from the private sector, repackaged with added value. The government should be more 

aware of these private sector efforts, and the full associated costs for government to perform these 

services itself. In some cases, government will find it beneficial to partner with the private sector and 

libraries to accomplish these tasks. In other cases, the government will determine that it is more 

appropriate to allow the private sector and libraries to assume responsibility for value-added services 

such as increased search and retrieval functionality. However, the government must not lose sight of 

the fact that it has the primary responsibility for managing the entire life cycle of electronic 

government information, including the dissemination and permanent public availability of and access 

to government information to and by the American public, without copyright-like restrictions. 

If the federal government continues to adopt a "distributed" (dispersed and decentralized) approach to 

public information availability—i.e., each agency develops a website for the distribution of its own 

information products and services—then the public, especially those with scant knowledge of the 

structure of the federal government, will face difficulties in finding public information at the source. 

Again, the digital library approach could be very helpful here. The first challenge for government is to 

assure that the public does not have to know in advance which agency might hold the information 

desired. 

The second challenge becomes navigating the agency's website, which can vary widely in complexity 

and user friendliness. To navigate websites seamlessly requires an intimate knowledge of not only the 

agency's structure but it's internal terminology. It can be very difficult to find a specific item (e.g., a 

specific document), even if the user knows its name or identifying number. It should be noted, 

however, that GPO Access's cataloging and locator services and FirstGov, under the authority of the 

General Services Administration (GSA) do provide access to centralized search capabilities that allow 

users to retrieve information from a broad array of agencies and branches of government. 

Moreover, when individuals search, they want results that might be of use to be shown in context, so 

that they can more easily understand the significance of the information. The citizen-searcher should 

not have to go back to the home page of an agency in order to relocate particular information on that 

site, yet many agency websites offer information through site searches that preclude direct links back 

to a specific document or file. 

User assistance is of critical importance in facilitating use of electronic information.100 Technology 

continues to enhance the means of providing huge amounts of information in electronic formats—

whether on disk, CD-ROM or DVD, or directly through the WWW and the Internet. As the number of 

resources grows, users are in greater need of tools to help identify both sources of information and 

data sets—critical components of those information sources—in order to meet their specific needs. 

 

100 It is also costly, since it requires manpower. A major benefit of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) is that it 

provides, at no additional cost to the federal government, trained, professional documents librarians as intermediaries to assist 

users to identify the right information to meet their needs, as well as instruct users on the interpretation and appropriate use of 

the information. This is an invaluable asset and any restructuring of the FDLP must find way to maintain and enhance this 

resource. The need for additional training for library and information professionals is discussed in Recommendation 13. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-60 

There are several means by which users can gain assistance: 

a. Personal interface, e.g., in non-profit and corporate libraries or through federal agency user 

support hotlines.101

b. Summary source information, provided most commonly in any number of formats as of indices 

and abstracts of information sources, summarizing both general information sources, as well as 

specific data sets within general sources. 

c. Search engines/locator services, used primarily to locate general information resources online 

effectively and quickly. 

d. Search and retrieval technologies, normally specialized software delivered as part of the 

information product or service and used primarily to locate specific data or data sets once access 

to a digital information source is achieved. 

e. Value-added citations and links, and other services built upon such data. In this regard, various 

commercial search engines such as www.google.com or the Institute of Scientific Information 

(ISI) citation research tools can be very helpful. 

Several other issues affect the provision of assistance to users. Among the most critical of these—

regardless of whether assistance is provided by government, the private sector or libraries are: 

1. Cost to both the provider and members of the public. 

2. Quality, often tied directly to the cost of providing the assistance. 

3. Innovation, i.e., developing, testing and providing new means of obtaining and using information 

sources or data sets to meet the public demand. 

Regardless of whether user assistance is provided by the public or the private sector, however, the 

public often experiences mixed results. In terms of private sector WWW and Internet locator and 

search engine services, many such providers rank websites based on special or exclusive—and 

sometimes economic—agreements with website purveyors or on how frequently websites are 

requested and successfully found by users. Government agencies are unlikely to enter—and under 44 

U.S.C. 3506(d), executive branch agencies are statutorily prohibited from entering –into special 

agreements with the private sector. More importantly, if the public is not aware that an agency has 

placed a site on the web or added new information sources to the site, it is unlikely that it will be 

ranked highly on a private sector service due to a large number of hits. 

 

The federal government has also been somewhat successful in the provision of search and retrieval 

capabilities to assist users once they have gained access to a website. However, depending on how the 

agency has organized the information provided through the website, the public can sometimes 

encounter difficulties in locating specific data—unless they are already well-versed in the technologies 

of the web or unless they have been able to identify specific parameters to help narrow their search 

(e.g., the date of a notice; the precise name or public law number of a statute or court decision; or the 

date or number of a regulation implementing a statute). 

The inevitable limitations on availability of government resources, however, demand that the 

government should undertake only the most necessary user assistance activities and need not duplicate 

 

101 In fact, the government should be more proactive in promoting its information services to the public and offering user 

support for those services. It also should do more to promote libraries, particularly the federal depository libraries, as 

additional sources of user support. Conclusion 6 and Recommendation 13 relate specifically to the Federal Depository 

Library Program (FDLP). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-61 

or adopt all types of services that private sector and library providers offer to their customers and 

patrons. Cost and unmet public needs will always be major factors in the evaluation by government 

agencies of what user assistance services to provide. In addition, although the government has a 

general mandate primary responsibility to make widely available the information it creates and 

maintains, it also has a responsibility to encourage the development of alternative sources for public 

information, including online sources—whether private or non-profit in origin. Therefore, regardless 

of what services it develops, government must make them available to the public at large—including 

private and non-profit sector providers—at no cost. 

1.H. Transition from the print era to the electronic era has been at lightning speed; 

ramifications have barely had time to be even partially assessed, both positive and negative 

consequences. 

The Internet has come upon us with lightning speed. By comparison, cars, telephones, radio, and 

television crept upon us, giving plenty of time to adjust to them. The government itself has set very 

stringent deadlines for converting from pre-Internet mediums to the Internet, as is evidenced by the 

timetable for agency and public compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, 

allowing very little time to accommodate to the changes in lifelong habits that are necessary. 

The printed word is not dead yet. Is there anyone left by now who does not 

appreciate the irony of seeing the volume of paper printing at the individual 

desk level reach a proportion that is hundreds, if not thousands, of times 

greater than centralized printing ever was? 

In the past public acquisition of government information depended entirely upon physical mechanisms

— upon government depository and other libraries, upon government and privately owned bookstores, 

directly from publishers, mail order from GPO or private redistributors such as order fulfillment 

houses or other outlets, and agency distribution lists. If a person did not live near a library, they simply 

could not get the information easily or quickly. While this system worked well in the ink-on-paper era, 

it now has evolved rapidly into an electronic, networked-based public information environment. 

Younger people, especially, do not want to access information in paper. They are accustomed to using 

the Internet for quick and easy access to information wherever and whenever they need it. 

The electronic mode makes it possible to deliver information wherever the reader may be (for 

instance, to his or her computer in the home or workplace, or by wireless technology to anyplace), to 

present information that cannot be captured in print (such as video appendices, tables that can be 

manipulated and so on), and to facilitate use of information through quality interfaces and search 

capabilities. 

The Internet is the medium of choice for many in business, education, and general information 

seekers. The Internet does not represent merely an incremental improvement, but a fundamental and 

far-reaching change in the distribution and dissemination of information in all forms, including public 

information. 

Before the World Wide Web, publishers viewed the Internet as an add-on to print, CD-ROMs, DVDs, 

and microfilm. Paper was the primary medium for distribution of information. It is still preferred by 

many people, but is not the medium of choice for the future. Now many publishers and most young 

people view the Internet as the primary source for information. Print has become the add-on. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-62 

However much agency information is not available on the web, or else it has been taken down even 

though it was once available. For example, in one recent study by the University of California at 

Berkeley, a list of approximately 70 electronic government publications, which previously were 

available via the Internet (as text, html or PDF files), are no longer available for a variety of reasons. 

These files may have been removed because the publications were updated or revised, the issuing 

agency believed there is no longer a need to provide access to them, the issuing office no longer 

maintains their website, or for other reasons102

As was pointed out by a depository librarian at a Commission public meeting, in some cases a public 

information product may be available in both electronic and print versions, but only the print version 

is the authentic and reliable version. Certain tables within the Statistical Abstract of the United States

are in this category. When a user is confronted with legal, medical, or revenue issues, reliability is 

absolutely crucial. 

In short, the printed word is not dead yet. Is there anyone left by now who does not appreciate the 

irony of seeing the volume of paper printing at the individual desk level reach a proportion that is 

hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than centralized printing ever was? 

It should be extremely clear that when the Commission recommends that the government not entirely 

abandon print media, it is not because of some kind of neo-Luddite mindset, but, rather, because as 

one moves across the spectrum from the highly information literate one end to the highly information 

illiterate other end, the dependency on print media becomes proportionately higher. This fact flies in 

the face of the loud proclamations to the contrary from the dwindling numbers of the “paperless 

society” gurus. The “paperless society,” we have been told with numbing regularity, is “just around 

the corner.” It has been “just around the corner” now for many decades, but, in fact, we are further 

away from that prediction today than we were in the mid-20th Century!103

Librarians and others have expressed concern about the assumption than all information can be 

delivered and used as well or better electronically than in other forms. Commenting on the draft report, 

Jill Pigeon of Hollins College said, "Tangible documents are better in certain cases for a variety of 

reasons, ranging from guaranteed historic value and availability to ease of use, [as well as] ensuring 

access to the technologically or financially disadvantaged." 

Agencies are not routinely asking themselves two key questions when they migrate their information 

products to the web: 

• Do the new medium and format improve access for existing and new users with a need for the 

information? 

• Do the new medium and format deter or prohibit access to existing or new users with a need for 

the information? 

1.I. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches still significantly undervalue government 

information as a public good that offers a substantial return on the investment to the taxpayers. 

Dissemination of public information and its use create significant public benefits for all users. 

Information enables all Americans to learn about their government, issues affecting their quality of 

 

102 American Library Association (ALA), Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT), "Electronic Information No 

Longer Available on the Internet, May 10, 2000," available at http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/GODORT/2k0508missing.html. 103 This issue is addressed in Appendix 15 in Volume 3 of this report: Some Important Information Age Paradigm Shifts and 

Their Associated Myths and Realities. It is also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen15.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-63 

life, regulations related to safety in the work place, how to grow healthy children and healthy plants, 

how to begin or expand a business, research on health and medicine, the exploration of space, etc. 

More timely release of regulatory information fosters compliance with various laws and rules affecting 

the environment, health, and the work place. 

Elected officials, economists, and policy analysts repeatedly remind us that this is a "knowledge 

society" where information is the key resource and asset. In this environment, information and 

learning become the key drivers to maintaining national superiority in science, technology, innovation, 

and economic growth. The Internet has transformed education and health care. More and more 

colleges, universities, and private companies offer courses and degrees to users remote from college 

campuses. Corporations use the Internet to disseminate training and education to employees around 

the globe. The wide availability of health information is producing consumers with more knowledge 

of diseases, options for healing, health, and wellness. It is essential that citizens have governmentproduced information on which they can rely. 

As the world's largest producer of information, the federal government has a unique and critical role in 

the information society and the nation's future scientific and economic development. The investment 

made by the taxpayers in research, data gathering, and the dissemination of information has been and 

will continue to be a key resource that returns enormous benefit to the economy and society. The 

maximum return on this investment and the maximum public good can be achieved only if 

government produced information and research results are disseminated in an effective manner on the 

Internet. The work that has been done in evolving and refining the digital library concept actually 

predates the spread of the World Wide Web, and could be usefully examined in this context.104 

As Roy Tennant points out in a recent article in Library Journal, the guidelines to help organizations 

decide which of their holdings they should consider for digitizing are complex and vary from 

institution to institution. "Selection guidelines produced by individual institutions are understandably 

focused on the needs of the particular institution and its clientele but may [serve as an inspiration to 

others.]"105 

1.J. Cost-sharing of public data among user groups is no longer the big issue that it once was. 

At a recent meeting of the Association of Public Data Users (APDU) it was reported that only seven 

years ago, in 1993, an APDU consortium of 18 members spent $5,000 to purchase a set of Public 

Microdata User Samples (PUMS) tapes from the Census Bureau. The actual cost of duplicating each 

set of tapes, including a share of the original fee paid to the Census Bureau, was only $1,700 per 

member. Thus Census was charging at least $3,300 more than the cost of duplication for each set that 

it sold. This example makes clear that agency efforts to charge more than the cost of dissemination can 

and will be thwarted by cooperative purchasing or other redissemination methods. 

The economics of this equation have been turned upside down by the Internet. The cost sharing of 

public data is no longer the big issue it once was in most (but not all) areas. Of course the biggest 

reason for this is that more and more data is now becoming available free on agency websites. 

Nevertheless, it serves as a reminder that there are valid economic and policy reasons using for cost 

recovery as the basis for pricing of public information that is not made available free of charge. 

 

104 Both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation have funded relevant studies on digital 

libraries are included in the bibliography in Appendix 32. The Appendix is also available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen32.pdf.

105 Roy Tennant, "Digital Libraries: Selecting Collections to Digitize," Library Journal, Vol. 125, no. 19 (November 15, 

2000), page 26. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-64 

1.K. Direct web surfing is fine, but bypassing the utilization of traditional intermediaries in 

searching for public information is creating both obvious and not so obvious dysfunctional 

consequences. 

As more and more public users develop their computer and information literacy skills to the point 

where they are searching for public information directly, by-passing the use of traditional 

intermediaries such as librarians and information brokers, many apparent as well as many not-soapparent consequences are cropping up. Some of these consequences might have been anticipated, but 

others are not so obvious. For example, in the words of a participant at a recent APDU meeting, "the 

policy behind the [public information] product is being lost as people access data directly without 

going through intermediaries such as librarians, statisticians, data analysts, records specialists, 

archivists, museum specialists, and so on." 

In the NCLIS staff authored White Paper on Information Age paradigm shifts, it was also pointed out 

that, in the broadest sense, the separation of content from its original context and provenance as 

information gets endlessly copied, reproduced, communicated, and re-communicated is another 

dysfunctional consequence with disquieting ramifications. For one, the separation of content from its 

original context (or what in records management parlance is "provenance") is frustrating attempts to 

evaluate the credibility of the information because its source and origin is "hidden".106 

Most users understandably expect to find a specific item of information, not a web page when they 

undertake a search. However, when the initial search results refer to another web page, they are still 

faced with a second search, or following of multiple links, to find the necessary information. For 

example, Jill Vassilakos-Long, an experienced government documents specialist, described looking 

for documents using the GPO Browse Electronic Titles feature. She selected a document from the list, 

but the link took her to another website, instead of to the document itself. She describes her ultimately 

successful effort to find the document she is seeking, saying: "I see a later edition (1997) of this 

document on the site; but [not] the 1996 edition. [When] I go under a link that looks as if it is part of 

the 1997 document—the link is called "reports"—I ... find the 1996 document."107 This comes about, 

not through any fault of GPO, but because agencies move and remove documents constantly. 

1.L. Electronic government documents often, quite literally, appear one day and disappear 

without a trace the next. 

Many documents specialists fear, with documented evidence, that if a document was "born digital" 

and never initially came to a depository library in paper form, no depository library will ever have it. 

Jill Vassilakos-Long, a government documents specialist at the California State University in San 

Bernadino, estimates that at least 10% of the documents linked to by the GPO Access portal for the 

use of federal depository libraries and others have been taken down from the agency servers that 

originally housed them.108 Here is her description of the current state of affairs and her vision of the 

future if things continue as they are: 

I have perfect faith that at least 10% of the titles linked to from GPO (i.e. these did not 

begin as fugitives!) have been taken down from the servers that housed them. I 

absolutely believe that at least 10% of information that was disseminated in non-

 

106 The White Paper on information Age paradigm shifts is available as Appendix 15 in Volume 3 of this report and at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen15.pdf. 107 Jill Vassilakos-Long (jvlong@csusb.edu), "Pitfalls of Digital Storage," Message posted on GOVDOC-L, Friday, July 21, 

2000 at 10:48 a.m. 

108 Ibid. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-65 

tangible format is GONE. If it did not also come out in paper and get distributed, I 

strongly believe that no library will have it. If it has been deemed "old enough" to be 

taken off the agency server, I strongly believe that no number of calls to the agency 

will obtain a copy (unless I'm a Senator, but for a constituent—nothing). 

It gets worse. If GPO did not have this page up, I might tell the patron that he or she 

must have the citation wrong, that such a document NEVER EXISTED! It would 

literally be gone without a trace. 

... I just have no way to convey the enormity of what is happening. [With] 10% gone 

today, in a decade how much will be left? 

While in some cases agencies formally announce plans to discontinue a public information product, as 

required the Paperwork Reduction Act,109 in most cases they do not, particularly when the publication 

is "merely" an electronic file on an agency website. In some cases involving multi-format publications, 

users cannot distinguish between a multi-format publication losing one of its formats and a web-only 

publication completely disappearing. 

There seems to be an implicit, if not explicit policy in many agencies that once the decision is made to 

transfer an information product from print, or other pre-electronic medium and format, to a website in 

electronic form, that the agency thereby relieves itself of any obligation to preserve and maintain prior 

year data if it was not in electronic form. 

As the Commission pointed out in its Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of the NTIS, 

30% of document requests for both NTIS and the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) are 

for documents 10 years or older! Provided below are three very brief examples of why permanent 

public availability of government information is absolutely critical. 

From the Gulf War up to the present time, there has been the continuous threat of use by Iraq of 

mustard gas. Fortunately, the United States still has the technical reports from World War I regarding 

mustard gas. The chemistry has not changed, nor have the effects. These reports not only remain valid 

today, but they are still the main part of the knowledge base. 

In 1974 the OPEC oil embargo led to increased research in synthetic fuel. The best research in this 

area was done in Nazi Germany during World War II since the Germans had limited oil fields, and the 

Allies were closing down crude oil sources. DTIC has the technical reports produced by Germany. 

These became very popular in 1974 and in the years that followed, and are likely to receive renewed 

attention due to the recent sharp increases in gasoline and heating oil prices. 

In 1998 a depository librarian sent an e-mail to the Social Security Administration (SSA) thanking the 

agency for retaining multiple years worth of a title on its website, and noting that the historic 

documents were of value to the researchers using her library. A reply was soon received thanking the 

librarian for the e-mail, and informing her that SSA had removed the two earlier years from its web 

page. This title is no longer issued in any tangible form through the depository program, since it was 

 

109 Section 3506(d)(3) of the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1995 states that agencies shall "provide adequate 

notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products." One problem 

with this language is the use of the undefined term "significant" to characterize the information dissemination products for 

which notice is required. In its recommendations for changes existing legislation and OMB Circular A-130, the Commission 

recommends elimination of this term and clarification of the notice provision. This recommendation is Appendix 12 in 

Volume 2 of this report, which is available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen12.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-66 

available electronically. This means that the versions from those past years are no longer available in 

any form. Only the current year is available on the SSA website. 

2. FINDINGS RELATING TO DISABLED, DISADVANTAGED AND SPECIAL 

POPULATIONS 

2.A. The hard-core computer "disaffected" are a special population. 

According to a recent report released by the Pew Internet & American Life Project,110 half the adults 

over 18 years of age in America, approximately 100 million people, do not have Internet access. The 

survey, conducted in the April 2000 to August 2000 timeframe, found that: 

• A third of the Internet non-users, about 31 million people, say they are likely to stay away from 

the Internet for the purpose of surfing. 

• Another 25% of the non-Internet users say they probably will not venture online not just for the 

purpose of surfing the Internet, but sending and receiving e-mail, using any kind of word 

processing or spreadsheet or other kinds of software for personal or business purposes, searching 

online databases, and so forth. 

• On the other hand, 12% of those without Internet access say that they definitely will go online, and 

29% of non-Internet users say they probably will get Internet access. 

• 54% of those not online believe the Internet is a dangerous thing. 

• 51% of those not online say they do not think they are missing anything by staying away from the 

Internet. 

• 39% of those not online say the Internet is too expensive. 

• 36% of those not online express concern that the online world is a confusing and hard place to 

negotiate. 

• 13% of those who are not online (about 12 million people) have used the Internet at sometime in 

the past, but have since dropped off. 

• Of those who have dropped out, 21% say they no longer have a computer, 14% say they have 

changed jobs, 11% say paying for Internet access was too expensive, 9% say they didn't find the 

Internet very interesting or useful, and 8% say they were worried about their privacy. 

Of course it is easy to say that the Internet is a brand new communications medium, which is just at 

the beginning of its product life cycle. Inevitably these numbers will change, but the Commission's 

purpose in citing the survey findings here is primarily to underscore three points: 

First, the government has an obligation to respond to the public information needs of all of its citizens, 

not just those who are highly computer literate and information literate. To the extent that a significant 

proportion of the population may never acquire Internet literacy, their needs must be provided for by 

other means and communication mediums. In the words of one depository librarian who appeared as a 

witness at a Commission meeting, "we still must tell people who come into the library that when you 

use the mouse, you don’t need to pick it up first!" This story may bring a smile to the face of the 

 

110 Amanda Lenhart, Who's Not Online: 57% of Those Without Internet Access Say They Do Not Plan to Log On, 

Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, September 21, 2000; 

http://63.210.24.35/reports/pdfs/Pew_Those_Not_Online_Report.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-67 

computer literati riding in their latest model desktop Lamborghinis, but it is the truth being confronted 

on the user front lines every day by librarians all across the country. 

Second, the government must provide for the transition of society from its current, still largely paperbased mode, to the Internet-of-the-Future promise, by carefully subdividing its planned policies related 

to e-Gov and the policy implementation into short, medium, and long-term timeframes programs and 

projects to avoid a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach. 

Third, the government has an obligation to educate and train information professionals who, in turn, 

can train the general population in how to find and use public information. It is not enough for an 

agency to merely post information on its website, and then "walk away" from the postings, so to 

speak. 

A majority of Americans has probably never used a public library, or entered a bookstore. 

Unfortunately, that is most true among those groups in society that most need information to deal with 

their problems: the poor, the ill educated, the elderly, those suffering chronic and oftentimes incurable 

illnesses, and the unemployed. 

2.B. Individuals with disabilities and those who are otherwise disadvantaged stand to gain the 

most from the new technologies, which give them tools to gain greater independence and social 

integration. 

The Administration announced “the Digital Divide” challenge with great fanfare 

in 1998, but unfortunately too many individuals have thought the term refers 

just to physical access barriers to information resources, not intellectual barriers 

to access. Inadequate computer and information literacy skills are the major 

barriers to intellectual access. Both types of barriers must be removed before 

citizens can reap the awards of the Information Age.

The Commission strongly believes that any effort to improve government information dissemination 

to the public must include those with disabilities and those who are otherwise disadvantaged. It is 

strengthened in this belief by a study by the Disability Statistics Center at the University of California, 

San Francisco.111 This study states that people with disabilities stand to gain greater independence and 

social integration through computer technology. However, they have among the lowest rates of use, 

and many are poor and cannot afford computers capable of navigating the Internet. Lower-cost 

computing and access, simpler user interfaces, and training and support in the use of hardware and 

software are essential, if this segment of our population is to effectively move into the new age. 

Speaking before the House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government 

Management, Information and Technology, OMB Deputy Director for Management Sally Katzen said: 

As the President directed in his Executive Memoranda commemorating the 10th

anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act on July 26th of this year, agencies 

 

111 H. Stephen Kaye, Disability and the Digital Divide, Abstract 22, San Francisco: Disability Statistics Center, University of 

California, San Francisco, July 2000; http://www.dsc.ucsf.edu/UCSF/pdf/ABSTRACT22.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-68 

have been asked to make all programs offered on their Internet and Intranet sites 

accessible to people with disabilities by July 27, 2001.112

The Commission identified nine organizations that it believed represented a broad cross section of the 

disadvantaged groups, and surveyed these groups for the purpose of ascertaining where they believed 

existing public information dissemination policies and programs impacting disabled and 

disadvantaged individuals and other special populations could be strengthened.113 Of these, seven 

responded, and several other organizations that were not initially approached provided valuable 

unsolicited comments, as well. 

In addition, the Commission received testimony from the National Association of the Deaf, at its 

December 4, 2000 public meeting. 

Of the seven survey responses received, only one organization, the National Library Service (NLS) for 

the Blind and Physically Handicapped within the Library of Congress, reported having a formal policy 

on dissemination of government information, and this only insofar as it meets the needs of its 

particular special clientele. This policy is folded into the NLS collection building policy, which 

includes the responsibility for making library materials available for the blind and physically 

handicapped. 

Four of those surveyed reported having, or planning, programs to reach their clientele: 

• American Association on Mental Retardation. RADAR (Focused Research and Reporting on 

Critical Developmental Disability Issues) is an online data warehouse to be used for data mapping 

and trend analysis. 

• Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP). Ageline database of articles and 

book summaries, licenses to several search services. Plans are for it to be added to the AARP 

website later this year. 

• Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind. Strategic partnership with a Colorado-based audio bookstore 

(ReelBooks Internet, Inc.) to develop an e-commerce business operated by employees who are 

blind and visually impaired. 

• National Organization on Disabilities. Plans for a program to reach business and volunteer groups 

on how to effectively serve those with disabilities. 

Five of the organizations surveyed identified information they do not receive from government, but 

which would be useful to their memberships/clienteles. These include: 

• Information on key issues on development disabilities (abuse, housing, aging, employment and 

transportation). 

• Information on e-commerce and acquiring career skills to increase job marketability. 

• Popular consumer information from various federal agencies and time-sensitive information. 

• Information on the "how-to" part of disability work. 

• Items that have sound, text or captions, including streaming videos and websites that talk. 

 

112 Sally Katzen, Statement before the Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, 

Information and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, October 2, 2000, page 2; 

http://www.cio.gov/docs/October_2_2000.htm.

113 The survey results related to special populations are available as Appendix 28 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen28.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-69 

In addition, five of the organizations identified public information that they now receive and that their 

memberships/clienteles need or want, including: 

• Vital policy, financial, research and service information on issues and trends in mental health and 

substance abuse services. 

• Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid information, obtained through website links. 

• Consumer documents and research and statistical information. 

• Information on Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and guidance on accessible websites. 

The Administration announced “the Digital Divide” challenge with great fanfare in 1998, but 

unfortunately too many individuals have thought the term refers just to physical access barriers to 

information resources, not intellectual barriers to access. Inadequate computer and information literacy 

skills are the major barriers to intellectual access. Both types of barriers must be removed so that all 

citizens, whether or not they are disabled or disadvantaged, can reap the awards of the Information 

Age. 

Section 8a(6)(f) of OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, direct 

agencies to: 

(6) Maintain and implement a management system for all information dissemination 

products which must, at a minimum: ... (f) Ensure that members of the public with 

disabilities whom the agency has a responsibility to inform have a reasonable ability 

to access the information dissemination products...114

However, the Commission finds that additional steps are necessary to meet to the needs of special 

populations. 

2.C. Schools and school age children are a disadvantaged special population. 

While it is true that more than 95% of all U.S. public schools have access to the Internet, in all 

likelihood machines are often old, often inaccessible, or the level of computer and information literacy 

necessary to utilize them effectively causes the number of students using the Internet to lag seriously 

behind this 95% availability figure. A number of public and private activities have made this 

connectivity possible. The "digital divide" is a reality, but it is gradually improving although it will 

probably never disappear entirely. Just as reductions in price resulted in VCRs becoming ubiquitous in 

U.S. households, reductions in the price of computers and commercial offerings of free Internet access 

are bringing the Internet into more and more schools. The use of computers and the Internet by more 

school children also is stimulating sales and access. According to Nielsen/Net Ratings, Internet users 

with annual incomes between $21,000 and $33,000 spent more time on the Internet than the average 

Internet user, and this finding is reflected in the relatively high computer and information literacy 

capabilities of school age children. 

Every parent knows how his K-12 children are attracted to the excitement of using computers at home 

and at school to do research, to play games, to do homework, and for other purposes. It has become a 

cliché that the parents must sometimes learn how to do something on their PC's by asking their 

children. The federal government has done innovative things in making public information more easily 

understandably by, and usable by K-12 school age populations. Many federal websites, including 

www.whitehouse.gov, include special pages for children. Other federal websites include materials for 

 

114 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of Federal Information Resources," OMB Circular A-130, op cit. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-70 

K-12 teachers to help them use agency information in the classroom. The Commission finds that 

federal agencies, for the most part, are already well sensitized to the opportunities in this area, but 

development of high quality public information services for children should be encouraged at the 

highest levels of government and carefully monitored by the Department of Education and other 

agencies. 

2.D. Older populations are a disadvantaged population. 

The Pew Internet & American Life Project mentioned earlier found that "Most of the strongest Internet 

holdouts are older Americans, who are fretful about the online world and often don't believe it can 

bring them any benefits." More specifically, 43% of all adults not online are seniors who are 60 or 

over.

 115

At the same time, articles in newspapers and magazines record tales of older citizens using the Internet 

to exchange e-mail with grandchildren, learn more about health care and other issues of interest, and 

chat with peers. So it would appear that despite initial suspicions, in fact, senior citizens represent a 

fast-growing segment of Internet users. In short, online access extends across the whole population 

spectrum and continues to expand its reach exponentially. 

Several associations pointed out that quite often senior citizens are physically handicapped in some 

respect or another. Therefore, applications be available that do not require stringent eye-hand 

coordination, or fine movement control. Helpful alternatives include scanning or keyboard navigation 

tools that do not require the simultaneous activation of two buttons and monitors that can display large 

print formats. Moreover, the operation of the devices and systems should be as simple, predictable, 

and error-tolerant as possible. 

The Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP) urged the Commission to 

recommend that the government "move from offering simple, passive access to government 

information to actively getting it into the hands of individuals who need it." 

2.E. Persons with visual impairments are a disadvantaged population. 

Information specialists are working to make Adobe Acrobat PDF files more easily accessible to the 

blind and low vision computer users, and it is hoped that the next release of the Adobe Acrobat Reader 

will contain this feature. Several associations have suggested that all electronic government 

information presented visually (or stored as an image) should have an alternative or supplemental 

presentation (or storage format) that does not require vision (e.g., auditory format or ASCII text that 

can be "read" by a Braille display or a voice synthesizer).116 Moreover, alternatives to controls that 

require eye-hand coordination (e.g., mice, trackballs, ordinary touch screens) should also be provided, 

such as keyboards, and Talking Fingertip touch screens. These alternatives also assist the physically 

impaired whether blind or not. 

2.F. Persons with hearing impairments are a disadvantaged population. 

In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act and strengthened provisions covering access to 

information in the federal sector for people with disabilities. As amended, Section 508 of the 

 

115 Amanda Lenhart, Who's Not Online, op. cit. 

116 Good website practice calls for a text label associated with every image. That may be as simple as a statement like 

"picture of John Doe" or as elaborate as a paragraph describing a painting by Renoir. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-71 

Rehabilitation Act requires access to the federal government’s electronic information. The law applies 

to all federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic information technology. 

Federal agencies must ensure that this technology is accessible to employees and the public. The law 

directs the Access Board to develop access standards that will become part of the federal procurement 

regulations. 

Several of the associations surveyed by the Commission that serve persons with hearing impairments 

(as well as those serving other disadvantaged populations) strongly recommend that these populations 

first go to the Access Board's website to read carefully about the rules for Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act Electronic and Information Technology provisions.117 The Access Board is an 

independent Federal agency devoted to accessibility for people with disabilities. It operates with about 

30 staff and a governing board of representatives from Federal departments and public members 

appointed by the President. Key responsibilities of the Board include: 

• Developing and maintaining accessibility requirements for the built environment, transit vehicles, 

telecommunications equipment, and for electronic and information technology; 

• Providing technical assistance and training on these guidelines and standards; and 

• Enforcing accessibility standards for federally funded facilities.118

Beyond the use of the Access Board website, several associations surveyed by the Commission 

suggested that all audible government information (e.g., information stored as a sound file) should 

have an alternative or supplemental mode of presentation (or storage format) that does not rely on 

hearing (e.g., a visual mode or an ASCII text file). A Braille display or a voice synthesizer can read an 

ASCII text file. Auditory information beeps or any other sounds that convey essential information 

should be avoided.119

Deaf and hard of hearing individuals seek the following in terms of access to libraries and public 

information: 

• Make calls from outside, including after hours (i.e., via TTY as well as through other interactive 

means). 

• Access materials and resources through the Internet. 

• Use accessible materials, i.e., books, audiotapes, videos, CDs, software, and the like. 

• Attend regularly scheduled or special programs, training sessions, and presentations (including 

those provided by deaf and hard of hearing persons). 

• Obtain assistance from trained staff that are either deaf or hard of hearing, or understand the 

specific needs of these groups. 

Technology, which uses voice as its communication medium has struggled to overcome the 

tremendous variations in language, dialect, accent, and individual intonation and pitch. These naturally 

occurring problems in the human population exacerbate the difficulties being experienced by the deaf 

and hard of hearing when using technologically-based voice command systems. 

 

117 The Rehabilitation Act material is available at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/status.htm.

118 This description of the Access Board is from http://www.access-board.gov/indexes/aboutindex.htm.

119 Conversely, auditory information can assist users who are blind or have low vision. This fact reinforces the need for 

multiple devices and techniques to address the requirements of users with a variety of disabilities. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-72 

In public comments that the Commission received on December 4, 2000, from Nancy J. Bloch, 

Executive Director of the National Association of the Deaf, accessibility to public information was 

underscored as being of great importance and concern to the 28 million deaf and hard of hearing 

persons in the United States. It was pointed out in this testimony that information for the deaf is 

frequently provided without regard to the multilingual needs of this special group, or the needs of 

those for whom English is a second language. Also, attitude was singled out as a barrier to accessing 

public information that can be even more formidable than physical barriers. Very often intermediaries, 

such as government officials, neither have the extra time nor the extra patience to work with disabled 

and disadvantaged groups. 

2.G. Small businesses and sole proprietorships are a disadvantaged population. 

There is some disagreement among federal agencies as to how far the government could and should go 

in providing special assistance tools to help sole proprietorships and small businesses to find and 

utilize needed public information, and to comply with regulatory paperwork requirements as a way to 

reduce their burden. The Commission believes that sole proprietorships and small businesses are in a 

very real sense a disadvantaged population that should be afforded special priority, just as special 

assistance is given to the other disadvantaged groups described above. Government information is a 

key to helping these businesses start, compete and continue to grow, prosper, and provide increased 

job opportunities, including jobs for individuals with disabilities and other disadvantages. 

2.H. There are other disadvantaged and special populations. 

Other disadvantaged and special populations include a wide variety of impairments and 

"disadvantages" not otherwise covered in the preceding sections, such as the disadvantages faced by 

Native Americans, by rural Americans, and by individuals that are victims of discrimination. In every 

case there is a computer and information literacy gap experienced by these special and disadvantaged 

groups. There is a gap in between knowing and not knowing how to use computers, what public 

information exists, what information is available to them, how to search for that information, how to 

access that information in formats and mediums most useful to them (oftentimes special formats and 

mediums expressly designed to compensate for their disadvantage), and how to utilize that information 

once it is retrieved. 

The National Agricultural Library (NAL) has a rural information center staffed by information 

specialists who know the available information that is generally useful to, and requested by, rural 

Americans and how to access it. They work with other NAL information specialists who are organized 

under broad subject categories to assist users to identify and obtain needed information. 

There are also technology and telecommunications gaps for rural Americans. As the Nancy Bolt, 

speaking for the Colorado State Library, points out in her comments on this assessment: 

Many rural states like Colorado still have substantial geographic areas with no 

Internet access or where access is prohibitively expensive, even with the e-rate.120 In 

addition, a vast number, perhaps majority, of our citizens do not possess the high 

 

120 The schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, popularly known as the e-rate, was established as part of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996 with the express purpose of providing affordable access to telecommunications services 

for all eligible schools and libraries, particularly those in rural and economically disadvantaged areas. Additional information 

is available at http://www.fcc.gov/learnnet/.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-73 

speed/download/print-off capacity necessary to truly use the electronic public 

information dissemination process the Commission's report proposes.121

Individuals and institutions with dial-up Internet connections, usually at 56 kbps,122 will have great 

difficultly downloading large documents. The longer it takes to download a document, the more likely 

that an error will interrupt the transmission, requiring the user to restart the download. 

Empowering the disadvantaged by increasing their opportunities for improving their information 

literacy skills should be a constant beacon guiding government's efforts to enhance the value of its 

public information resources. Strategies for accomplishing that not only include developing and 

providing specialized hardware and software such as Braille equipment for the blind, nor only 

enacting legislation such as Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, but the day to day vigilance of 

agency officials to the consequences of their actions, both positive and negative, for the disabled and 

the disadvantaged. 

In some cases language problems, both with immigrants as well as with some Native American 

populations, are the most serious barriers, and underscore the interrelationship between the new "four 

R's"—Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic, and computeR and information literacy. 

Finally, it must be remembered that in some disadvantaged populations, such as those on Indian 

reservations, many individuals are without even basic human infrastructure service needs, such as 

toilets, telephones and clean water, much less computers. 

2.I. Agency guidelines for disabled and disadvantaged individuals are not yet fully implemented. 

The final regulations for Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act were published in the Federal Register 

on December 21, 2000.123 Because they have just been published, it will be sometime before these 

regulations are fully implemented. 

The standards were developed by the Access Board in close consultation with members of the IT 

industry, disability advocates, World Wide Web standards groups, members of academia, and Federal 

officials. These standards will ensure that: 

• Federal employees with disabilities are able to use information technology (IT) to do their jobs; 

and 

• Members of the Public with disabilities who are seeking information from Federal sources will be 

able to use IT to access the information on equal footing with people who do not have disabilities. 

The CIO Council memorandum to all agency chief Information Officers on implementation of the 

final regulations concludes by saying: 

In closing, making IT accessible is not just the morally right thing to do—it is the 

smart thing to do. We, as a country, sit on a cusp at the dawn of the Information Age. 

We have the potential to give millions of Americans an even greater freedom in 

cyberspace. In the end, in the not completely knowable terrain of the human heart is 

 

121 Nancy M. Bolt, Colorado State Library, in a letter to NCLIS Chair Martha B. Gould, dated January 3, 2001. 

122 56,000 bits per second, the current speed most commonly used for dial-up access. 123 U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, " Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility 

Standards; Final Rule," 36 CFR Part 1194, Federal Register, Volume 65, Number 246, Page 80499-80528 (65 FR 80499-

80528). These standards are also available at http://www.access-board.gov/ and http://www.section508.gov/.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-74 

the real argument for all these efforts. We ask you to look into yours, and to move 

forward with us together in the challenges that lie ahead. 124

3. FINDINGS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—GOVERNMENT-WIDE 

PUBLIC INFORMATION POLICY AND STANDARDS LEADERSHIP AND OVERSIGHT 

3.A. The Federal Government's role is critical in formulating and overseeing public information 

dissemination policy and development of standards to facilitate public access. 

There is no single, government-wide focal point for public information policy 

and standards development, coordination, and oversight, for the government 

as a whole, or even within each branch. This does not mean that the 

Commission advocates some kind of Orwellian United States Government 

Public information Resources commissar. Rather, the Commission sees absence 

of a lead agency as a very serious deficiency and the need for coordination 

between branches as essential. Certainly individual agencies must continue to 

have sufficient autonomy to pursue the most effective cost effective and efficient 

approaches to information dissemination. 

As the Commission stated in the above prefatory materials, the government's movement toward e-Gov 

is a highly commendable initiative. However, for the benefits and values of the World Wide Web and 

the Internet to be fully realized and exploited, the federal government cannot abdicate its governmentwide policy and standards leadership and oversight role in developing and enforcing policies, 

standards, and guidelines for: 

• Electronic publishing of public information resources. 

• Permanent public information availability and accessibility. 

• Permanent records retention. 

• Integrated government information life cycle management. 

• Preservation of government Information to guard against the obsolescence of storage and handling 

mediums and formats. 

• Authentication of official agency electronic information. 

• Digitization of non-digital information 

• Other purposes. 

The federal government plays a strategic role in creating, collecting, organizing, and providing 

government information for the public. For example, the government has taken the lead to establish 

some landmark, highly effective public information resources in past years. These initiatives will 

always stand as beacons to guide the development of similar resources in the future, not only at the 

federal level, but also at lower levels of government, and even in foreign countries. These include, for 

example, the databases, clearinghouses, E-FOIA reading rooms, agency libraries, specialized 

 

124 Craig Luigart and James Flyzik, "Publication of Final Regulations Implementing Section 508," Memorandum for Chief 

Information Officers, Washington, DC: CIO Council, December 21, 2000, http://www.cio.gov/docs/Sec508RollOut.htm.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-75 

information services for the disadvantaged, online information services, and other public information 

resources of such model agencies as the: 

• Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

• Department of Defense, primarily through the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). 

• Department of Energy (DOE). 

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

• National Library of Medicine (NLM). 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 

• National Technical Information Service (NTIS). 

• Government Printing Office, including the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) and the 

Superintendent of Documents' Sales Program. 

• Major portals for public information including FedWorld, GPO Access, Library of Congress 

Thomas, StatUSA, and now FirstGov. 

• National Science Foundation, especially because of their work on the Digital Libraries Initiative 

and National Science Digital Library (NSDL). 

Federal agencies and organizations in all three branches are now caught 

between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand, they 

are being correctly congratulated for the superb initiative they have shown in 

mounting more and more of their information resources on their websites, and 

making their information products much more widely available and accessible, 

and in creative and innovative ways. On the other hand, they are also being 

correctly criticized for the absence of effective internal and external 

coordination of their policy and standards development and implementation as 

they pertain to the electronic publishing, permanent public availability of 

holdings, effective and efficient search and retrieval of their information, 

reliable authentication of their electronic documents and data, preservation of 

materials housed on obsolescing technologies, and related matters. 

All of these resources have made it easier for researchers, students, job seekers, individuals with health 

problems, and innumerable other challenges, to find and use needed public information. However, 

much work remains to be done. 

Federal agencies and organizations in all three branches are now caught between the proverbial devil 

and the deep blue sea. On the one hand, they are being correctly congratulated for the superb initiative 

they have shown in mounting more and more of their information resources on their websites, and 

making their information products available and accessible in creative and innovative ways. On the 

other hand, they are also being correctly criticized for the absence of effective internal and external 

coordination of their policy and standards development and implementation as they pertain to the 

electronic publishing, permanent public availability of holdings, effective search and retrieval of their 

information, reliable authentication of their documents, preservation of materials housed in 

obsolescing formats and mediums, and related matters. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-76 

The agencies find this dilemma difficult. Existing government-wide public information policy and 

standards leadership and oversight machinery is simply inadequate to cope with the challenges 

confronting the entire government. There is no single, government-wide focal point for public 

information policy and standards development, coordination, and oversight, for the government as a 

whole, or even within each branch. This does not mean that the Commission advocates some kind of 

Orwellian United States Government Public Information Resources commissar. Rather, the 

Commission sees absence of a lead agency as a very serious deficiency and the need for coordination 

between branches as essential. Certainly individual agencies must continue to have sufficient 

autonomy to pursue the most effective cost effective and efficient approaches to information 

dissemination.125 

3.B. The time is ripe for the Congress to direct a review of the hundreds of laws that have been 

enacted since the Birth of the Republic, for the purpose of assessing the cumulative, overall 

impacts and effectiveness of the statutory foundations for public information resources 

availability. The current overall statutory foundation for public access to government's 

information is too heavily tilted toward providing a legal framework for adversarial 

proceedings, and too lightly oriented to regarding government information as a strategic 

national asset needed by all Americans to help achieve their personal, family, and job-related 

goals and aspirations. 

Since the birth of the nation, Congress has enacted hundreds of laws with provisions of one kind or 

another requiring federal agencies to establish some kind of public information resource. Many of 

these laws are still in effect.126 These laws fall into several major categories, and the Commission has 

identified some illustrative examples of recent laws in each category.127 

It has been assumed, incorrectly, that public information needs are entirely met by the fortuitous 

enactment of this wide variety of individual laws, each of which contains quite specific public 

information resource provisions. However, many public needs for government information are not 

adequately met by any existing law and no systematic effort has been made to identify these needs and 

determine how best to meet them. 

The major cornerstones of federal public access laws ... are essentially legal 

frameworks for adversarial proceedings. That is to say, the rights of 

government are pitted against the rights of citizens. What is completely 

overlooked in this construct is the idea that government's data, information, and 

knowledge resources are a strategic national asset, owned by the people and 

held in trust by their government. ... This is the missing "building block" in the 

federal statutory foundation of public information dissemination. 

 

125 The need for government-wide public information policy leadership and standards development is also discussed in 

Finding 5.A and Conclusion 3. 

126 Jane Bortnick Griffith, op. cit., includes an index of statutes relating to the dissemination of public information. More 

recent laws on dissemination of public information are identified in Appendix 33 in Volume 3 of this report: Index to a 

Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public Information Dissemination and as Appendix 35 in Volume 4: A 

Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes Pertaining to Public Information Dissemination. Appendices 33 and 35 are also 

available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen33.pdf and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen35.pdf, 

respectively. 

127 The categories are in Appendix 33 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen33.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-77 

For the most part, during the early stages of bill drafting, the rather well-established processes of 

legislative history review, combined with the subject expertise of the legislative drafters (e.g., 

environmental law, energy law) succeeds in identifying most unnecessary overlap and duplication, and 

both substantive and legal inconsistencies with existing legislation. Nevertheless, the Congress has 

apparently not utilized the 1996 compilation of public information laws128 to review and eliminate 

contradictory policies in operating information dissemination programs, identify unmet public 

information needs, and assess how the government's overall public information dissemination program 

could be strengthened, especially in the light of the Internet.129 

Although the foundation of public access to government information is found in Title 17 of the U.S. 

Code, which specifically prohibits copyright of federal information,130 the major cornerstones of 

federal public access laws are the Freedom of Information Act (including E-FOIA), the Privacy Act, 

the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. However, these Acts are 

essentially legal frameworks for adversarial proceedings. That is to say, the rights of government are 

pitted against the rights of citizens. What is completely overlooked in this construct is the idea that 

government's data, information, and knowledge resources are a strategic national asset, owned by the 

people and held in trust by their government.131 This information should be permanently available to 

the people, with limited exceptions for national security, privacy and similar compelling reasons. This 

is the missing "building block" in the federal statutory foundation of public information dissemination. 

There are other, more specific areas of concern. For example, sometimes government-funded research 

ends up being published through professional journals or other copyrighted publications, with no 

version available in the public domain. There are also certain NSF-funded grants where the grant 

terms do not specify the production of a report, but a deliverable that is much less concrete and 

specific, such as "the advancement of knowledge." Since the results of such government-funded work 

is not in the public domain, it is not available through NTIS or GPO, and it does not find it way into 

the FDLP for free public access.132 

3.C. The Federal government's public information resources dissemination obligations are not 

completely fulfilled by agency website postings alone. 

Despite statements and inferences to the contrary, just because federal agencies are, very 

commendably, making such massive quantities of government information electronically available to 

the public, much more easily accessible, and for free in most cases, on their websites, does not in any 

way mitigate or alter, much less eliminate, their legal and ethical responsibilities to ensure the: 

• Permanent public availability of government information for the public. 

• Preservation of government information, in the face of the continuing obsolescence of formats and 

mediums in which it was originally created and is stored and handled. 

• Permanent records retention of government information in the face of the ephemeral nature of email messages, website postings, and other electronic information. 

 

128 Jane Bortnick Griffith, op. cit. 

129 This issue is addressed by Recommendation 19. 

130 The prohibition of copyright for federal government information is contained in Title 17 U.S. C. 105: "Copyright 

protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is 

not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." 

131 Recognition of public information as a strategic national asset does not imply exploitation of that asset to generate 

revenue for the government, like the sale of lumber or mineral rights on federal land. On the contrary, it must result in 

optimizing timely and permanent public access to the information for its owners, the people of the United States. 

132 This issue is addressed by Recommendation 17. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-78 

• Efficient, effective, and easy-to-understand means for the public to ascertain the authenticity of 

official government information. 

• Continuous, integrated life cycle management of government information from creation to 

disposition. 

• Adequacy of safeguards be developed and put in place to guard against the inadvertent or 

fraudulent disclosure of public information held in trust by the government for private individuals, 

businesses, and others. 

• Protection of sensitive national security and foreign information. 

In a May 2000, the Department of Energy hosted a workshop at the National Academy of Sciences, 

discussing ways to improve the physical sciences information infrastructure. At that workshop the 

recommendation was made that a conceptual change is needed that allows better integration of 

information types (e.g., text, data, images, animations), as well as information at various stages in the 

analysis process (raw data, partially processed data, text summaries of analyzed data in varying 

degrees of analyses, and unreviewed or peer-reviewed documents). In the words of the report "such a 

conceptual change would facilitate serendipity and insights that can be gained by dealing with these 

multiple information types and their interrelationships."133

What is "missing" is an overall, government information life cycle framework for meeting these 

requirements in an integrated, "single, one stop" fashion. When agency officials create new 

information (e.g., whether a publication, an e-mail message, a report, or some other document), or 

receive information from another office inside or outside the agency, certain statutory and agencymandated requirements must be fulfilled. A systems approach to dealing with this problem, such as the 

development of a fully integrated, government information life cycle management software module as 

a tool for those who create and manage information,134 has never been used. The absence of such a 

systematic approach results in enormous frustration by individual agency officials, agency 

management officials, and the government-wide information services and information management 

mission agencies such as GPO, NTIS, and NARA. 

Admittedly, OMB Circular A-130 does call for the integrated life cycle planning for information, and 

outlines objectives for that planning process. However, the requirement fails to stress the linking of 

that concept to the broader goals of information resources management. Instead, the Circular seems to 

exacerbate the problem of dealing with an intangible resource such as "information" because 

management's focus for at least four decades has thought of "information resources" as primarily 

hardware and software. Yet, the Circular's policy framework emphasizes both content and technology 

under the information management heading. However, in the planning context, the bias is toward 

information systems, rather than use of the information content. 

Government information resources management problems and challenges that impact public 

information resources more likely than not affect internal agency information resources as well, which 

is why the Commission maintains the two areas are increasingly converging. Such problems and 

challenges include: 

 

133 Workshop Report on a Future Information Infrastructure for the Physical Sciences: The Facts of the Matter: Finding, 

Understanding, and Using Information About Our Physical World, Washington, DC, May 30-31, 2000, Washington, DC: 

Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, no date, page 8. 

134 Government information life cycle management is explained in more detail in the White Paper available in Appendix 16 

in Volume 3 of this report. Appendix 16 is also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen16.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-79 

• Increasing amounts of information in electronic form make knowing where to look for it an even 

more daunting challenge than it was in the pre-electronic eras. 

• Information hoarding is a very big, wasteful problem, in large part because subordinate units, 

especially those in remote locations, do not trust "the central system" to provide them with the 

information the need. 

• Although information usually arrives in time to be helpful, it is unlikely to be in the right format 

for decision-making, and therefore significant re-working is often required. 

• The government wastes a lot of time and money re-inventing information rather than finding and 

retrieving virtually the same, or closely similar information. 

In a recent revision to its Circular A-130, OMB points out: 

A key part of communicating with the public is providing adequate notice of agency 

information dissemination plans. Because agencies’ information dissemination actions 

affect other agencies as well as the public, agencies must forewarn other agencies of 

significant actions. The decision to initiate, terminate, or substantially modify the 

content, form, frequency, or availability of significant products should also trigger 

appropriate advance public notice.135

One of the Commission’s consultants also authored a white paper suggesting a model for government 

information life cycle management.136

3.D. The federal government should make government information openly available in readily 

reproducible form without any constraints on subsequent uses. 

This general principles that the 1982 NCLIS Public Sector/Private Sector Task Force first articulated, 

have stood the test of time, and the current study reaffirms the soundness of these principles 

notwithstanding the dramatic changes that have occurred in the interim because of the tremendous use 

of electronic information handling technologies. Several of these key general principles are ones on 

which the Commission relies in making the case for continuing the mission of NTIS regardless of its 

federal organizational locus. Specific reasons for NTIS, and the other central information services and 

information management agencies with government-wide missions to continue in this critical role, 

even in the face of the dramatic increases in agency website utilization for public information, are 

covered in greater detail below in Section 7 dealing specifically with NTIS. 

In its final report, Commission Panel Three on public users needs said: 

Federal agencies are not mandated by law to disseminate all information collected or 

gathered in the course of their operations. In its efforts to foster efficient agency 

operations and save money, Congress has discouraged issuing "unnecessary" reports 

and information, often not realizing that these reports and data may constitute valuable 

research material.137

 

135 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key 

Sections," OMB Circular A-130, op cit. 

136 The White Paper on government information life cycle management is Appendix 16 in Volume 3 of this report; it is also 

available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen16.pdf.

137 The final report from Commission Panel Three is available as Appendix 25 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen25.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-80 

The core idea here is that the public interest is best served by a diversity of sources and channels for 

public access to government information. This is reaffirmed by the requirement of Section 

3506(d)(1)(A) of the of the Paperwork Reduction Act that agencies shall "(1) ensure that the public 

has timely and equitable access to the agency's public information, including ensuring such access 

through (A) encouraging a diversity of public and private sources for information based on 

government public information." Agencies should not refrain from value–added information 

dissemination services when that is consistent with their missions. However, agencies may not 

frustrate private sector redissemination activities by imposing restrictions or by limiting private sector 

access to electronic formats. Commenting on the report of Panel 4, Henry H. Perritt, Jr., of the 

Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology, said "The most important things 

to avoid are government-sponsored monopolies, in which agencies enter into arrangements with 

private entities to lock up public information through copyright or copyright-like arrangements. Title 

17's prohibition on copyright of federal information should be honored broadly." The Commission 

strongly concurs. 

3.E. Certain key necessary information preparation tasks required before posting electronic 

documents to agency websites are inherently governmental functions (public goods) and should 

be budgeted for, and financed using congressionally appropriated funds, not financed by 

indirect cost recovery tools such as the sale of public information. 

It must always be remembered that the taxpayer has paid for the creation or 

compilation of government information. Therefore the people own the 

information and the government holds the information in trust, utilizing it to 

formulate public policy and to plan and implement programs for the benefit of 

the people. The government has an obligation to utilize this asset efficiently and 

effectively and to optimize its availability to the people. 

In its earlier report this year to the Congress dealing specifically with the planned NTIS closure, the 

Commission said that: 

The Congress (should) annually appropriate sufficient funds beginning in FY 2000 to 

finance that portion of legislatively mandated NTIS activities and services, which are 

inherently governmental in nature... These activities and services include the orderly 

collection, organization, preservation of, and permanent public access to scientific and 

technical information of potential use to future generations of researchers.138

The current study has not caused the Commission to modify its stance in this regard. On the contrary, 

the current study's findings buttress the above position in even stronger terms. It must always be 

remembered that the taxpayer has paid for the creation or compilation of government information. 

Therefore the people own the information and the government holds the information in trust, utilizing 

it to formulate public policy and to plan and implement programs for the benefit of the people. The 

government has an obligation to utilize this asset efficiently and effectively and to optimize its 

availability to the people. 

Certain costs incurred by any central information service and information management agency with a 

government-wide mission (not just NTIS) that are inherently governmental in nature include: 

 

138 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), op. cit. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-81 

collection or acquisition, processing using scanning and microfiching and archiving, indexing and 

abstracting and cataloging, creating and maintaining the database itself for Internet access, mounting 

the full text of reports online, and maintaining the historical collection of files.139 In some instances, 

these services are provided central information service units within the department, such as the Office 

of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) in the Department of Energy or the Defense Technical 

Information Service (DTIC) in the Department of Defense. The unclassified information that these 

organizations in turn feed into NTIS is already acquired, indexed, and stored digitally or in microform. 

The expenses that must be incurred to defray the costs of these activities are absolutely necessary to 

accessibility of the information. They cannot, and should not, be avoided or hidden, nor can they be 

"automated" as if by magic. They are human-intensive and costly, and they require the expertise of 

experienced STI information professionals. 

An information facility such as NTIS cannot "acquire" (the technically precise term) an official agency 

R&D report information product if it is not in appropriate form. Moreover, the product must be 

adequately described, such descriptions must be in a proper database, that database must be online, 

and the full text must be online, and it must be archived. If these conditions are not met, the 

information is not identifiable and therefore not useable. 

Additionally, these costs are each completely independent of the specific user. They are fixed costs, 

not variable costs, to use accounting terminology. They are necessary for the access in general, not for 

the individual. They represent capital investments in the means for providing access, not the costs in 

serving any specific individual. 

There are some exceptions to these inherently governmental expenses that are discussed below in 

Section 7. 

Finally, there is room for consolidation, simplification and avoidance of unnecessary overlap and 

duplication among agencies with central information services and information management functions, 

as is pointed out below. 

3.F. Disseminating information to the public is not accorded the status of a line item in 

individual agency and program, or in the President's budget. The cost of disseminating 

information to the public is hidden as an overhead cost or treated as an unfunded mandate. It 

should be considered openly in the agency budget preparation process as an essential and 

integral cost of an agency's normal mission business. 

The cost of disseminating information to the public is usually overlooked, buried or hidden in 

overhead accounts and is often treated as an unfunded mandate by agencies when they prepare detailed 

project and program plans, enter into contracts, and prepare their annual budget plans for the President 

to review and consolidate, and eventually submit to the Congress to appropriate funds. The exceptions 

are the major statistical agencies, the national libraries, and some major central information service 

agencies such as GPO and NTIS, with major information dissemination expenses clearly identified in 

their budget documents. Indeed, many Internet gurus say, "the cost of dissemination is an outmoded 

concept." The Commission completely disagrees with this view. In short, access does not equal 

dissemination. 

The penalty of not identifying the cost of information dissemination as a discrete agency budgetary 

line item is that too often the public is short-changed by either not receiving information at all, or 

 

139 This issue is also addressed in Finding 10.E and Recommendation 11. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-82 

receiving only some of the information generated, or being told "the information is on our website 

somewhere – but it’s up to you to find it!" The failure to disseminate is particularly critical in the 

instance of information generated as a result of the government's awarding contracts to private 

contractors for undertaking R&D work, but it is equally true of non-R&D contracts with the private 

sector in other sectors, including education, the environment, energy, national defense, and so on. 

Many Internet gurus say, "The cost of dissemination is an outmoded concept." 

The Commission strongly disagrees with this view. The ease and 

cost of access to public information have indeed been enormously improved, 

but the burdens and costs of dissemination are still with us. In short, access 

does not equal dissemination. 

Too often agencies view the requirement to disseminate information to the public as simply another 

unfunded mandate or a source of revenue. There are instances where the sale of public information is 

appropriate, as with the current GPO Sales Program. However, such sales could never result in an 

adequate level of revenues to finance the public good functions that are the underling information 

infrastructure for such a program.140

In some cases the dissemination of government information to the public is an absolutely critical 

requirement (as in the case of R&D contracts, and in the case of the major statistical agencies and the 

some central government-wide information service agencies, such as GPO and NTIS, and the national 

libraries). There are other instances, however, where this requirement is less critical. However, the 

example of the Department of the Navy's Diving Manual is instructive in this regard. The Navy 

initially intended, and expected, that this product would be used exclusively by Seabees and other 

Navy personnel in official government diving and salvage operations. However it soon became 

apparent that citizen-divers, diving instructors, and others, both in the U.S. and abroad, soon saw the 

efficacies of using the much-needed and practical information contained in the Manual for a far 

broader range of general purposes and applications, especially in training and certifying young people 

in Scuba diving and related recreational activities. This is an excellent example of why public 

information utility should not be at the mercy of initial agency expectations and determinations. 

Continual monitoring of public information needs is essential.141

Another example is the School Lunch program of the Food and Nutrition Service of the Department of 

Agriculture. Agriculture Marketing Service tracks food through the food chain to determine where 

bacteria or other causes of spoilage might occur. This information is of considerable interest to the 

public, although this prospective interest was not considered in initial planning for this program. If the 

USDA had considered the dissemination costs for this program as an integral part of their agency 

budget request, program by program, at the line item level, the information would have been 

disseminated much more widely. 

Disseminating information to the public is not accorded the status of a line item in individual agency 

and program budgets and then aggregated into the President's budget. There is an Information 

Collection Budget (ICB) as a disincentive mechanism to discourage agencies from collecting 

excessive amounts of information from the public, but there is not Information Dissemination Budget 

(IDB) as an agency incentive mechanism to encourage agencies to disseminate information to the 

public. They are two sides of the same coin. They are two sides of the same coin. Burying public 

 

140 These public good functions are identified in Conclusion 6 and Recommendation 11. 

141 This issue is addressed in Recommendation 19. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-83 

information dissemination expenses in overhead accounts or treating them as unfunded mandates is 

completely inappropriate and counter-productive in the Information Age. 

There is general agreement that government-funded research and development are incomplete without 

dissemination of the results. Many statutes reviewed by the Commission as part of this study 

authorize, and even mandate, the dissemination of research results, best practices and model programs 

as an integral part of the program. Yet, the funding for this dissemination is rarely identified and 

separated out as a discrete cost in either the authorizing or the appropriations language. 

Disseminating information to the public is not accorded the status of a line item 

in individual agency and program budgets and then aggregated into the 

President's budget. There is an Information Collection Budget (ICB) a 

disincentive mechanism to discourage agencies from collecting excessive 

amounts of information from the public, but there is not Information 

Dissemination Budget (IDB) as an agency incentive mechanism to encourage 

agencies to disseminate information to the public. They are two sides of the 

same coin. Burying public information dissemination expenses in agency 

overhead accounts or treating them as unfunded mandates is completely 

inappropriate and counter-productive in the Information Age. 

Harmonizing existing explicit statutory authority and budgetary authority language and provisions 

with the IDB mechanism suggested here would be a priority order of business for OMB and the new 

Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) suggested elsewhere in this report. In no event 

should agencies, such as a major statistical agency with strong existing statutory and budgetary 

authorities for disseminating information to the public, be placed at risk through the erosion of existing 

budgetary authorities at levels below current levels. 

3.G. A single, central, comprehensive and authoritative online inventory and database of 

publicly available government information holdings is essential both as a primary resource to 

facilitate public access and as a "failsafe" resource that complements individual agency 

inventories. 

A single, central, comprehensive and authoritative online inventory and database of publicly available 

government information holdings is essential both as a primary resource to facilitate public access and 

as a "failsafe" resource that complements individual agency inventories. Section 8a(6)(c) of OMB 

circular A-130 requires all agencies to "establish and maintain inventories of all agency information 

dissemination products."142 If these inventories are developed using appropriate standards, are 

sufficiently detailed and are updated regularly, a single, central, comprehensive and authoritative 

inventory could be established by combining and appropriately indexing and cross-indexing these 

individual inventories. This would be of inestimable value for the FirstGov portal and for a wide 

variety of other public information resources management purposes. GPO Access already offers the 

ability to search across agency GILS records whether they are on GPO servers or on agency servers. 

The Commission's research into these past inventory attempts convinces it that they deserve top 

Legislative and Executive endorsement. To promulgate the requirement with lukewarm endorsement 

is a recipe for failure. Therefore, a renewed effort must be made to mobilize top-level support in both 

branches. 

 

142 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of Federal Information Resources," OMB Circular A-130, op cit. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-84 

The developments already undertaken to establish the major portals for public information, including 

FedWorld, GPO Access, Library of Congress Thomas, StatUSA, and now FirstGov, are a logical 

starting point for a single, central, comprehensive and authoritative online inventory and database of 

publicly available government information holdings. Although currently disparate both in purpose, 

scope, organizational location, content, and data formats and mediums, the experience gained in 

developing these portals and the data already gathered, will be invaluable in the design and 

development of a comprehensive inventory and database of public information resources. Integration 

of these resources is the logical beginning of a truly comprehensive inventory.143

3.H. Absence of an overall government-wide policy framework, as well as detailed guidance, is 

hampering inter-branch, interagency and intergovernmental information sharing. 

Interagency sharing of information, much less inter-branch and intergovernmental sharing, is a 

stepchild of often inconsistent and contradictory information laws and policies, and in some cases is 

actually discouraged! 

For example, the main body of the OMB Circular A-130 is concerned primarily with information 

management and "(t)he free flow of information between the government" and not information 

technology (IT).144 The Circular correctly recognizes that exploitation of the value of information is 

not an information technology issue—it's an information content issue. The circular points out that IT 

is not an end in itself, but rather is only one set of resources that can improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of federal program delivery. Human resources, financial resources, and property and 

equipment resources are also all important and needed. 

The "default" for government information should be to make all of its 

information resources available to the public, to other agencies, and to other 

levels of government, subject only to statutory non-disclosure provisions. 

Unfortunately, none of the Circular's "Basic Considerations and Assumptions," addresses interagency 

sharing of information. In fact intra-agency and interagency sharing of government information is 

specifically excluded from the definition of the term dissemination in the Circular. Sharing of 

information systems, not information content is the focus of the policy requirement. However in the 

Commission’s view both are positive considerations and should be addressed, not just systems 

sharing. 

Notwithstanding, paragraph 7k of the Circular, "Considerations and Assumptions," does state, "The 

open and efficient exchange of scientific and technical government information, subject to applicable 

national security controls and the proprietary rights of others, fosters excellence in scientific research 

and effective use of federal research and development funds." 

Ironically, in another section of the Circular, (8(a)(d)), agencies are directed to "Seek to satisfy new 

information needs through interagency or intergovernmental sharing of information, or through 

commercial sources, where appropriate, before creating or collecting new information." However, this 

is a somewhat negative construct, not a truly positive construct. A more positive construct would 

encourage interagency sharing of information even if no new information needs were identifiable, on 

the grounds that most of the time one agency simply does not even know what another agency has, so 

 

143 Implementation of this comprehensive inventory and database is addressed in Conclusion 5 and Recommendation 27. 

144 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of Federal Information Resources," op. cit., 1996. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-85 

how can it ask for it or benefit from it? The concept of "knowledge diffusion" is a much more positive 

concept that should be incorporated into the Circular's revisions, so that interagency sharing of 

information resources is seen as a part of an overall government knowledge diffusion goal. 

It has long been recognized that information needs and uses can never be predicted in advance with 

accuracy. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey once remarked that he often feared that the 

answers needed to solve the challenge of dealing with cancer lie hidden, long forgotten, in some data 

vault somewhere because the data was improperly cataloged, unindexed, and unabstracted. Certainly 

the immediate needs that led to the information's creation or collection were predicted or the agency 

and the Congress would not have funded its creation, but the potential uses of information very often 

materialize and manifest themselves only long after the information is produced. Like any resource, by 

amplifying and magnifying information uses beyond initial expectations, the government can multiply 

and magnify the information's value many-fold, like a prism. 

The government has an obligation to do more than just make public information 

resources available to the public—it has an obligation to help citizens improve 

their information literacy, their ability to find and evaluate government 

information, and their ability to use government information continuously for 

lifelong learning and to achieve personal goals. 

Government information that is already available to the public can, and should be more easily and 

cost-effectively accessible, and should have greater practical utility to citizens. The government has to 

do more than just make public information resources available to the public—it has an obligation to 

help citizens improve their information literacy, their ability to find and evaluate public information, 

and their ability to use public information continuously for lifelong learning. 

Agency information resources that are not already available to the public, and which are not subject to 

statutory prohibitions against disclosure and sharing pursuant to the FOIA disclosure exemptions, 

Privacy Act disclosure exemptions, national security legislation, and similar laws, should be reviewed 

for the purpose of making it available to the public. In short, the "default" for government information 

should be to make all of its information resources available to the public, to other agencies, and to 

other levels of government, subject only to statutory non-disclosure provisions. 

In addition, most of the interagency efforts to share government information among federal agencies 

have been the result of informal and collegial efforts within communities of mutual interest, not 

because they have been directed as part of an explicit federal information policy. Obviously, 

government interfaces with the general public, e.g., NTIS, GPO's Superintendent of Documents, are 

also available to federal agencies. These services, however, may not fulfill the information needs of 

specific communities. In many cases federal agencies have no central information content 

management organization and thus no mechanism to promote sharing. 

3.I. Safeguarding sensitive, proprietary and nonpublic information are legitimate barriers to 

interagency sharing and public access.

Information sharing among federal agencies, between branches and among levels of government does 

not mean that all federal information is, or should be, available to all agencies any more than it is 

available to the general public. There are many statutes that restrict federal employees from sharing 

information not releasable to the public or other agencies. Several of these laws have some 

proscriptions against disclosure, but, as in the case of the FOIA and the Privacy Act, the laws identify 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-86 

disclosure exemption categories of certain information from mandatory disclosure. Among these laws 

are: 

• The Procurement Integrity Act (41 U.S.C. 423) restricts the release of source selection and 

contractor bid and proposal information. 

• The Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) makes it a crime to improperly release contractor trade 

secrets and other confidential information outside the Government because improper release of 

data could result in claims from the owner for breach of contract or loss of business. 

• The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) restricts release of personal information about individuals, such 

as for private marketing purposes. 

• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) as Amended by Public Law 104-231, 110 

Stat. 3048, includes several exemptions relating to release of federal information to the public.145

3.J. There are budgetary and organizational barriers to interagency sharing of government 

information. 

In addition to legal and policy constraints, barriers, and obstacles, there are significant technical, 

budgetary, and organizational challenges to the active interagency, inter-branch and intergovernmental 

dissemination and sharing of federal government information. The President's Information Technology 

Advisory Committee (PITAC) reported in 1999146 that such technical challenges developing 

significant improvements in systems and methods for accessing data—including high performance 

data storage and tools to locate and present information, and developing reliable, secure networks and 

software to deliver and protect critical data needed to be addressed. The PITAC charged its Panel on 

Transforming Government to identify key technical challenges and develop a long-range technologybased strategy to harness the power of advanced information systems to make government's stores of 

information and vital services easily accessible to and usable by all U.S. Citizens. 

In its report Transforming Access to Government through Information Technology, PITAC findings 

address the issues from the perspective of public access. They are translatable into equivalent concerns 

for active intergovernmental dissemination and sharing of government information content. In terms 

of finding, sharing, and using government information resident in an agency, other government 

agencies are often no better situated than the public, and at lower levels of government the problems 

are exacerbated. 

As noted earlier in this report, the first finding of the PITAC Panel on Transforming Government was 

that: 

Major technological barriers prevent citizens from easily accessing government 

information resources that are vital to their well-being. Today government information 

is often unavailable, inadequate, out of date, and needlessly complicated. ... The 

government stores large amounts of important information. However, finding that 

information in the government’s many databases is difficult, and correlating the 

 

145 The nine FOIA exemptions are listed earlier in this report in the section entitled A Working Definition of Public 

Information. 

146 U.S. Executive Office of the President, National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and 

Development, Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future, final report of the President's Information 

Technology Advisory Committee, Washington, DC: National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and 

Development, 1999; available at http://www.ccic.gov/ac/report/.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-87 

meaning of findings from a number of inconsistently defined databases requires deep 

knowledge of the existence, contents, and management schemes of those databases. 147

The Panel also noted that: 

In addition, stovepiping of both congressional and executive review processes causes 

stovepiping of plans and programs. The Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA), for example, while valuable in requiring agencies to set goals against which 

they can be held accountable, tends to hinder agency interdependencies in plans and 

programs because no agency will create a GPRA objective that depends on budgeting 

and operational success in another agency.148

3.K. Sunk Costs of Obsolete Information and Communication Hardware, Software, Systems, 

and Network Investments 

In his comments on the draft report, Terry Ballard, an automation librarian at Qunnipiac College in 

Hamden, Connecticut, pointed out that the move from CD-ROM or DVD, paper, and microform to the 

Web has come during eight years of economic growth, "but the day is coming when the economy will 

pack its bags and head South. Once libraries purchase these products and redesign their work flow to 

accommodate them, they can't go back to doing things the old way." 

Mr. Ballard makes the case for planning and budgetary guidance and policies that take into account the 

enormous sunk costs involved as a result of the continual replacement of older information and 

communication technologies with newer ones. Libraries, archives, museums, and records depositories 

should not be punished for "bad mistakes" in these investments. They must be treated as nonrecoverable sunk costs in most cases. 

3.L. Lack of uniformly prescribed standards for determining authenticity of official agency 

electronic information creates mistrust and fosters public disillusionment in utilizing 

government information 

To date, the most common means to guarantee of the authenticity of official government information 

has been reliance on source credibility. Increasing electronic dissemination of information by federal 

government agencies, however, highlights the need for agencies to take added measures to assure the 

public that specific electronic information—especially that contained on government websites—has 

not only been created, validated, and initially provided by the federal government, but to understand 

which information carries the imprimatur of an official agency promulgation. The growing 

decentralization of agency electronic information dissemination activities, coupled with the ease of 

tampering or misrepresenting digital records, are likely to increase the focus on authentication 

procedures in the near future. 

Despite the lack of agency application of sophisticated digital watermarking or authentication 

technology, public concerns that information provided by government in electronic formats may not 

be authentic have been kept relatively minimal. The American public continues to rely on a trusted 

source for such information, e.g., an established agency website. This is well earned trust that should 

not be betrayed. 

 

147 U.S. Executive Office of the President, National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and 

Development, Transforming Access to Government Information Through Information Technology, op. cit. 

148 Ibid., page 13. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-88 

The federal government must assume the primary role of assuring authenticity. Several challenges 

must be overcome, however. Although there are some agencies working on methods to ensure 

authentication, no standard procedures have as yet been adequately analyzed, tested and translated into 

sound overall government policy and guidance. A system like FirstGov does nothing to overcome this 

inadequacy. Second, government information is produced by so many agencies in all three branches of 

government that any attempt at consistent application of standards or new technologies to provide a 

digital watermark or other types of digital rights management controls is almost impossible—not to 

mention the threat that employing such technologies may likely interfere with unrestricted access to 

and re-dissemination of public information. Third, technology that would provide some sort of 

automatic electronic authentication is still in the developmental stages. Applying such technologies 

would be costly or technologically challenging—both for government and the public. 

As the era of e-government advances, with its concomitant and significantly increased public need to 

interact with government information electronically, concerns about what constitutes authentic 

government information provided by federal agencies will also grow. If a technological solution is 

chosen, the greatest challenge will be to ensure that the public itself has the technological means by 

which to authenticate government information. 

A closely related question is related to the need for fire walls to help compartmentalize information so 

as to minimize the potentially disastrous effects of government website "invasions." However, this is a 

specialized topic that is beyond the scope of this study. 

3.M. Central official scientific and technical information policy and oversight executive branch 

authority never established. 

In 1962 Dr. Jerome Wiesner, Science Advisor to the President, appointed a special task force to 

examine federal STI programs. The task force made two major organizational recommendations to 

improve the flow of STI within the federal government. One was a central authority to define the 

objectives of government information programs; to plan, develop, and guide organization of 

government information activities; and to develop criteria (including financial) for effective operation 

of government-wide information system. The second recommendation was that each research and 

development agency of the federal government should set up an office exercising agency-wide 

direction and control of information activities." 

The intent was to establish a coordinated, consistent framework for obtaining 

STI. This included the establishment of a standard information categorization 

system known as the COSATI standard—the code for the cataloging of 

technical information. This "standard" is still used by DTIC, NTIS and some 

commercial organizations. However, the central authority has never been 

established. 

The then Office of Science and Technology (now the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(OSTP), an agency by law designated to coordinate and provide oversight in the effective management 

and dissemination of scientific and technical information (STI), assigned a fulltime staff member to 

information systems and an interagency committee, the Committee on Scientific and Technical 

Information (COSATI) was established in 1963. The recommendation that each R&D agency establish 

an organization responsible for management of the Department's STI Program was largely 

implemented. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-89 

COSATI was created to develop among the Executive Agencies a coordinated, but decentralized, STI 

system for scientists, engineers and other technical professions. Additionally, it sought to foster an 

improved national system for handling STI and it was made clear that if the blueprint didn't include 

the private sector there was little chance of an orderly growth of a national information system. 

COSATI became the national focal point for coordinating the development of a national network of 

independently operating but at the same time, cooperating STI systems. The key factor responsible for 

the success of COSATI was its organizational placement in the Executive Office of the President—

essentially above the level of the federal agencies themselves. The central authority was not intended 

to be a central operating activity. The intent was to establish a coordinated, consistent framework for 

obtaining STI. This included the establishment of a standard information categorization system known 

as the COSATI standard—the code for the cataloging of technical information. This "standard" is still 

used by DTIC, NTIS and some commercial organizations. However, the central authority has never 

been established. 

Indeed a dramatic decline began from the high level interest in management and transfer of scientific 

and technical information that was the hallmark of the 1960's science policy. The result was, by the 

mid-1970s, the disestablishment of the COSATI and the virtual elimination of OSTP staff associated 

with STI systems. Beginning about this time and continuing through the mid-1980s leaders of the STI 

facilities in major R&D agencies met regularly but informally to discuss and, if possible, take action to 

address problems associated with the cooperative management and transfer of federal STI. These 

meetings led to the formal establishment of CENDI in 1985. Details of the role of CENDI appear 

below under Findings Relating to the Federal Government—Interagency Groups. 

4. FINDINGS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—INDIVIDUAL FEDERAL 

AGENCIES WITH OPERATING MISSIONS 

4.A. The potential value of agency websites as the prime component of the federal public 

information dissemination infrastructure is unchallenged, but needs to be strengthened. 

All thirteen of the agencies the Commission surveyed in its limited survey designed to try and pinpoint 

key public information dissemination policy and program issues recognized the value of the web in 

helping federal agencies to make their information publicly available, but indicated that the 

government still had a long way to go to create a federal information infrastructure that was fully 

responsive. 

A more aggressive public information dissemination program management is 

needed to ensure that the public receives effective and complete access to, and 

dissemination of, agency information. 

The responding agencies also felt strongly that information paid for by the taxpayers must be 

accessible within the context of legal restrictions governing its release. However, they asserted that a 

more aggressive public information dissemination program management is needed to ensure that the 

public receives effective and complete dissemination of, or access to, agency information. One agency 

suggested that a requirement should be imposed for the creation and maintenance of an authoritative 

and comprehensive listing of all available information on every agency website. At the same time, 

many agencies felt that any new requirements imposed should carefully evaluate the impact of 

workload and staff capacity to meet the workloads or burdensome and unreasonable expectations or 

deadlines. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-90 

Dan O'Mahony, Brown University government documents librarian, in testimony before the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration said: 

I think it is important to recognize that despite the tremendous potential and, in many 

cases, compelling advantages of electronic information, the reliable and flexible 

information infrastructure necessary to support a predominantly electronic Federal 

Depository Library Program is not yet in place—not in the federal agencies, not in the 

Internet and supporting networks, not at the libraries, and not with the public at 

large.149

4.B. Many agencies have established standing public information dissemination policies and 

programs, but there are wide differences among them, and they could be standardized to a 

greater degree without sacrificing individual agency differences or stifling agency initiative. 

Although many agencies have established effective public information dissemination policies and 

program, there are wide differences between them and they need to be standardized. This 

inconsistency could be eliminated by ensuring that there is a standard provision in the enabling 

legislation for each agency incorporating public information dissemination as a primary agency 

responsibility, integral to its mission. This requirement should apply to all entities in all three branches 

of the federal government. 

Information dissemination is an essential, integral part of every agency's 

mission. When agencies administer their programs, they often fail to ask 

themselves the following important questions: 

• What information have I gathered, or do I hold, that could be useful to the 

public? 

• How can I best make the public aware of the availability of this information 

and provide public access to it? 

In saying this, the Commission is not suggesting that agencies should disseminate information to the 

public that is inconsistent with their statutory mission, but rather that information dissemination is an 

essential, integral part of every agency's mission. When agencies administer their programs, they often 

fail to ask themselves the following important questions: 

• What information have I gathered, or do I hold, that could be useful to the public? 

• How can I best make the public aware of the availability of this information and provide public 

access to it? 

As OMB acknowledged in its November 2000 analysis of key sections of the revised OMB Circular 

A-130, there is no standard approach to information dissemination in each agency's mission: 

As agencies satisfy these requirements [of the Paperwork Reduction Act], they 

provide the public basic information about government activities. Other statutes direct 

specific agencies to issue specific information dissemination products or to conduct 

 

149 Daniel P. O'Mahony, testimony before the U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Hearing on 

Public Access to Government Information in the 21st Century, May 22, 1996; 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/mahtest.html (testimony) and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/mahprep.html (prepared 

statement). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-91 

information dissemination programs. Beyond generic and specific statutory 

requirements, agencies have responsibilities to disseminate information as a necessary 

part of performing their functions. For some agencies the responsibility is made 

explicit and sweeping; for example, the Agriculture Department is directed to 

"...diffuse among people of the United States, useful information on subjects 

connected with agriculture...." (7 U.S.C. 2201) For other agencies, the responsibility 

may be much more narrowly drawn.150

The analysis goes on to say: 

Information dissemination is also a consequence of other agency activities. Agency 

programs normally include an organized effort to inform the public about the 

program. Most agencies carry out programs that create or collect information with the 

explicit or implicit intent that the information will be made public. Disseminating 

information is in many cases the logical extension of information creation or 

collection. 

In other cases, agencies may have information that is not meant for public 

dissemination but which may be the subject of requests from the public. When the 

agency establishes that there is public demand for the information and that it is in the 

public interest to disseminate the information, the agency may decide to disseminate it 

automatically. 

The policy in Section 8a(5)(d) sets forth several factors for agencies to take into 

account in conducting their information dissemination programs. First, agencies must 

balance two goals: maximizing the usefulness of the information to the government 

and the public, and minimizing the cost to both. Deriving from the basic purposes of 

the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501), the two goals are frequently in tension because increasing 

usefulness usually costs more. Second, Section 8a(5)(d)(ii) requires agencies to 

conduct information dissemination programs equitably and in a timely manner. 

As noted above, the Commission surveyed a dozen or so federal agencies as a part of this study, 

asking them about their public information policies, programs, and practices.151 Their responses were 

quite "upbeat." 

Within the last five years, significant strides have been made in the dissemination of public 

information in electronic format. Agencies are convinced of the advantages both for accessibility and 

availability and the resultant economic, effectiveness, and efficiency gains, as well as programmatic 

gains. Information provided to the public is timelier when in electronic format, and the posting of rules 

and regulations requiring public comment provide a quick and easy means of transmitting comments 

within the review period. Filing of information required for permits, licenses, and the like, can often be 

done electronically and, in fact, will be required under the Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

(GPEA). Those wishing to acquire information on a specific subject can search the catalogs of 

publications (printed and electronic) posted on the website, be told where to obtain the information, 

and in many instances request the information through e-mail to the site. 

 

150 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key 

Sections," OMB Circular A-130, Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget, November 30, 2000; 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a130/a130appendix_iv.html.

151 The results of the agency survey are available in Appendix 27 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen27.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-92 

All agency survey respondents reported having websites at the departmental and lower unit levels. For 

example, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' Office of Public Affairs manages the AO 

website. The department/agency sites include policies and procedures, press releases, fact sheets, 

listings, and indexes of publications, and in some instances the full text of a publication, statistical, and 

other data sets. Respondents for the Departments of Labor and Treasury, and the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) specifically mentioned the requirement for appropriate review and clearance of 

information being placed on the web. Most respondents indicated the existence of policies and 

procedures for the web, although only the Indian Health Services, the Departments of Defense and 

Treasury, and the AO indicated coverage for adding, changing, and deleting information. 

The Electronic Freedom of Information Act (E-FOIA) appears to have impacted agencies heavily, in 

that several agencies reported indexes and search capabilities for use by the public in FOIA Reading 

Rooms. The Indian Health Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs refer to their E-FOIA 

Reading Rooms, though they do not specifically refer to the E-FOIA itself. 

Only the Department of Defense and the Smithsonian Institution report a comprehensive listing of 

electronically published information. In DOD information is included in the DOD Resource Locator. 

In other departments, the divisions, bureaus, and small organizational units maintain listings of their 

publications (print and electronic) on the web. 

4.C. The opportunities for strengthening customer-based current awareness programs offers 

bright promise for moving agencies closer to a fully proactive public information dissemination 

model 

Federal agencies have individually experimented with a wide variety of approaches and techniques for 

helping to keep their constituencies and clienteles aware of current agency public information products 

of special interest to them. This approach has been called "Selective Dissemination of Information" or 

SDI in the literature of librarianship. The term "current awareness" is more commonly used today. 

For example, the U.S. EPA has been providing the public with a variety of current awareness options 

for years. The agency currently operates over 50 externally available e-mail services that the public 

can subscribe to and they send information as frequently as appropriate. Perhaps the agency’s most 

successful venture in this regard is the Federal Register Listserv. This listserv offers 12 separate 

categories and transmits the full text of relevant Federal Register notices to subscribers by noon on the 

day of issue. The agency starts this process at 7:00 am daily and reviews the published Federal 

Register and categorizes all environmental notices for this purpose. The categorization supports both 

the e-mail lists and the agency’s in-house Federal Register collection that is available for the public on 

the Web, also on the day of issue. 

Other EPA lists that have been very successful include the Internet Newsbrief and the EPA News 

Releases Lists. Internet Newsbrief posts a weekly notice of new and noteworthy Internet websites of 

interest to EPA staff and environmental professionals. The EPA News Releases list posts 

approximately twice a week and includes all headquarters press announcements that have been sent 

out in the last few days. These services are important to people that work on environmental issues and 

also to the EPA staff and contractors who need to know what is happening in other offices and 

regions. 

The Defense Department and the military services have a wide variety of current awareness programs. 

For example: 

• Automatic Document Distribution (ADD)--full-text technical reports in microfiche. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-93 

• Automatic Magnetic Tape Distribution (AMTD)--citations to ALL technical reports on magnetic 

tape. 

• Current Awareness Bibliography (CAB)--citations from the Technical Reports Bibliographic 

Database in paper copy or electronically by e-mail. 

• DTIC Review--a sampling of full-text documents on a topic of current interest, as well as other 

related references and Internet addresses. 

• ECAB-DOCS -- customized bibliographies with full-text documents (requires Secure STINET 

subscription) that can be printed, downloaded and saved to disk or file. 

• Hot Topic Bibliographies/Documents--bibliographic citations to technical reports on topics of 

interest. 

• STINET Subject Categories Searching--the most current information via specific fields and 

groups. 

• Subscription Products--latest updates from the Research Summaries (RS) and the Independent 

Research and Development (IR&D) databases. 

• Technical Report Awareness Internet Links (TRAIL)--subject-based e-mail lists. For example: 

Aviation Technology, Chemistry, Communications, Military Sciences, Physics and Space 

Technology. 

From a broader perspective, the DOD DefenseLink (which the Defense Technical Information Center 

(DTIC) operates) provides a similar, but less granular, system called News by E-mail. It doesn't allow 

a subject profile, but it does allow for an e-mail "push" to subscribers. Subscribers choose each 

product they want e-mailed to them: 

• Defense News (official DOD releases), including News Releases, Contract Announcements, 

Advisories and Transcripts. 

• American Forces News (from the American Forces Press Service), including News Articles. 

In their article on "The 'Blur' of Federal Information and Services," Joan Lippincott and Joan Cheverie 

ask "Will an information website be able to 'learn' about a user, if the user wishes, and anticipate 

his/her needs and send appropriate new information as it appears?"152 Current awareness is a two-way 

street. That is, a user must be willing to divulge is or her special interests so that an information 

provider can develop an accurate user profile. That raises the potential for an invasion of privacy. 

There is a trade-off between the willingness to disclose some personal information and the benefits of 

automatically receiving new and updated information—whether from a commercial information 

provider or the government. 

4.D. There are many success stories in interagency sharing of government information. 

Despite the many statutory and policy barriers to interagency sharing, the Commission found many 

success stories for which the agencies must be given a good deal of credit. Here are just a few, and 

additional examples appear in Panel Two's Final Report.153

 

152 Joan K. Lippincott and Joan F. Cheverie, "The 'Blur' of Federal Information and Services: Implications for University 

Libraries," Journal of Government Information, Vol. 26, no. 1 (January-February 1999), page 26. 

153 The final report from Commission Panel Two is available as Appendix 24 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen24.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-94 

The National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) is a broad, collaborative program to provide 

increased access to data and information on the nation's biological resources. The NBII links diverse, 

high-quality biological databases, information products, and analytical tools maintained by NBII 

partners and other contributors in government agencies, academic institutions, non-government 

organizations, and private industry. Resource managers, scientists, educators, and the general public 

use the NBII to answer a wide range of questions related to the management, use, or conservation of 

this nation's biological resources. 

Gray literature is foreign or domestic open source material that usually is available through specialized 

channels and may not enter normal channels or systems of publication, distribution, bibliographic 

control, or acquisition by booksellers or subscription agents. The GrayLIT Network makes the gray 

literature of U.S. federal agencies easily accessible over the Internet. It taps into the search engines of 

distributed gray literature collections, enabling the user to find information without first having to 

know the sponsoring agency. The GrayLIT Network is a comprehensive portal to federal gray 

literature. By offering a mode of communication for this hard-to-find class of literature, the GrayLIT 

Network enables convenient access by the American public to government information. The 

Department of Energy (DOE) provides public access to this research tool through GPO Access in 

partnership with the Government Printing Office. Federal agencies participating in this project are 

DOD (through DTIC), DOE, EPA, and NASA. Participation will be expanding as the site develops. 

A new program area at Commerce assumed responsibility for bringing the Commerce Business Daily

(CBD) into the 21st century. They solicited proposals from organizations to fulfill their vision of a 

new, electronic CBD that would serve the needs of the government procurement community and 

American business in the information age. The result was a partnership with the Government Printing 

Office to produce CBDNet. This popular database is available free to the public on the GPO Access 

system. 

The Federal Register must also be included in any list of success stories for interagency sharing of 

government information for the public good. NARA indicates that Federal Register publications 

account for almost 90% of the traffic on GPO Access. 

The Commission is delighted to acknowledge that even as it was preparing this report for publication, 

the final draft of a new edition of Guide to Federal Publishing reached its desks. This new edition 

reflects the ideas and participation of the Interagency Council on Printing and Publications, the 

Federal Publishers Committee, the Government Printing Office, this Commission, the Consumer 

Information Center, NTIS, and the Federal WebMasters Forum, among others. It is a significant 

updating of the prior edition, taking into account the Web and Internet publishing. Yet, it remains 

unofficial guidance to government publishers. 

4.E. Statistical indicators of interagency information sharing show positive results. 

There are indicators that there is demand for government information both from inside government as 

well as outside. Namely, there is a demand from one federal organization for information generated by 

another government organization. For example, 

• GPO is a public access point. During a recent 11-day period, GPO extracted the number of .gov 

and .mil addresses (excluding state and municipal .gov sites) referring users to GPO Access and 

the number of referrals and compared them to overall addresses referring and the total number of 

referrals. Some 635 distinct URLs referred users to the resources of GPO Access. This was 12 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-95 

percent of the total. In all 32,185 referrals were received from these federal government addresses, 

or a little more than 23 percent. 

• DTIC is an access point for the Defense Department, Defense contractors and grant recipients. In 

FY 1999 DTIC provided nearly 53,000 unclassified non-digital documents to 30 federal 

government organizations in the Executive and Legislative branches. While 45% of these 

documents went to NTIS and the Library of Congress for their collections serving both the Public 

and Private sectors, 55% went to federal agencies to meet local needs. In addition to these 

"physical" documents 2,410 digital documents were provided to other federal agencies. Delivery 

of digital documents will continue to grow, as more documents are made available electronically. 

• NTIS is an access point for federal scientific and technical information (STI). Annually NTIS 

disseminates:154 

Paper Reports 75,000 

Microfiche/SRIM 750,000 

Subscriptions 175,000 

Best Selling Books 75,000 

Computer Products 20,000 

Audiovisuals 7,000 

Online/Distributions Millions 

4.F. Technical information handling standards and protocols are needed. 

With respect to technical information handling standards and protocols, a recent OMB survey of 

agency e-Gov plans indicated that: 

• Agencies agreed that common standards would be useful, especially in the XML area. However, 

agencies generally opposed mandating a common XML or "GXML" standard by statute because 

this would be slow and overly prescriptive. Furthermore, they contended that it has not been 

demonstrated that government information is so significantly different that a separate language 

(GXML) is needed. 

• In general agencies did not believe that new statutory direction is needed in the area of 

interoperability standards. A strong administrative effort, they contended, would yield the benefits 

of common standards in terms of interoperability while minimizing prescriptive laws. Agencies 

also noted that OMB policy requires relying on private sector standards wherever possible. 

• In the authentication arena, agencies strongly favored an interoperable public key infrastructure 

(PKI) through which multiple agencies could rely on a single digital signature. A federal PKI 

Steering Committee is studying the "Bridge" as a means for accomplishing this objective. 

4.G. Agency policy guidance on public information resources availability, management, and 

dissemination is still spotty, with some notable exceptions that could be emulated by other 

agencies. 

The Commission found that agency policy and procedural guidance laying out clearly what the 

agency's policies are for planning and managing its public information resources, making its 

information easily and cost-effectively available, findable, and accessible by the public is spotty with a 

few notable exceptions. One notable exception is the guidance laid out in the Environment Protection 

 

154 NTIS does not separately report government and non-government use; however, it is reasonable to assume that a 

significant percentage of NTIS use is by government organizations. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-96 

Agency IRM Policy Manual, in the chapter entitled "Policy on Public Access to EPA Information."155

This document clearly establishes: 

• Purpose. 

• Scope and applicability. 

• Background. 

• Authorities and references. 

• Policies (discussed below). 

• Responsibilities. 

• Definitions. 

Here are the EPA public information resources policies: 

• The Agency shall ensure that all information products created electronically be inventoried, stored, 

retrieved and, if appropriate, disseminated electronically. Agency contract agreements, grants, and 

interagency agreements shall require that deliverables be submitted in both paper and electronic 

format. 

• The Agency shall provide an array of information products and services targeted to the customer 

and determined to be cost-effective. These services may include simplified, integrated entry points 

for information seekers, such as information telephone service and a single Internet address 

connecting to all EPA-provided information. 

• All new and enhanced data systems, data collections, and databases shall be designed with 

consideration of the need to permit and facilitate public access to that information. 

• The Agency shall provide, where available, information on the uses and limits of each data 

product released to the public. The information provided may describe the Agency's purpose for 

collecting the data, the source of the data, the known quality of the data, the Agency's application 

of the data, and limitations or cautions in using the data. The Agency may issue a disclaimer 

against using the data for other than the purpose intended, because there is a high risk of 

misinterpretation of the information. 

• The Agency shall encourage and facilitate the integration of data and the exchange of information 

across EPA programs and with federal and state agencies to conserve resources and to improve the 

usefulness of the information to the public. 

• The Agency shall adhere to its written, Universal Customer Service Standards, and in particular to 

the EPA Customer Service Standards for Public Access. 

• The Agency should consider, to the extent resources allow, ways to overcome barriers many 

citizens face in obtaining information, such as lack of Internet access, language, and physical 

disability (hearing and sight, especially). 

It is clear from the EPA guidance that this agency takes full responsibility for not only producing 

information, but organizing that information, inventorying it, indexing it, and maintaining records of 

what they have available. In so doing, not only does the agency make the information more easily and 

readily available, both internally to other agencies and externally to the public, but it also makes the 

jobs of the central information service agencies such as NTIS, GPO and the FDLP, NARA, as well as 

 

155 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Policy on Public Access to EPA Information," IRM Policy Manual, Chapter 21, 

Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, February 1998; http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/polman/chaptr21.htm.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-97 

the Library of Congress and the national libraries, much easier, not to mention the jobs of their own 

agency libraries, information centers, and E-FOIA reading rooms. 

If the CIO Council establishes a "best practices" portfolio for model agency public information 

resources policy statements, in the Commission's view the EPA Chapter 21 material should certainly 

be included. There are other, very worthy examples as well that the Commission discovered as a result 

of its agency survey.156

4.H. Retention periods for public information on agency websites are inadequate to satisfy 

research and general public needs. 

Retention periods for public information resources on agency websites are inadequate to satisfy 

research and general public needs, including genealogical research. 

For example, two high profile Department of Commerce publications are cited in the departmental 

Fact Sheet157 issued in August of 1999 as part of the proposal to close the NTIS. The Department used 

these reports as examples, stating "the American people can get technical and business reports for free 

that they are forced to pay for to obtain them from NTIS." The Department of Commerce proposal for 

the public to rely on free access to these publications from the Commerce website in lieu of 

purchasing copies from the NTIS left unanswered several key questions: 

• How long would these documents be maintained on the Commerce Department website? 

• How easily could the documents be located and retrieved? 

The Fact Sheet provided no specific, permanent Internet address for either document, and a year later 

one report was found only with great difficulty and the other could not be found at all. 158 

The solution proposed by the Department of Commerce also fails to address many other less 

prominent documents that may never be posted on its website, and it ignores older publications that 

pre-date the availability of the website. Most of these reports are not currently available on any 

website. The issue of access to older materials gives rises to several additional questions: 

• Does Commerce intend to invest millions of dollars in converting these older documents to webready form? 

 

156 The results of the survey of government agencies are available as Appendix 27 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen27.pdf. 157 U.S. Department of Commerce, "Providing the American People Information for the 21st Century: The Commerce 

Department Proposes to Close NTIS and Ensure That People Can Receive Technical Information for Free Over the Internet," 

Fact Sheet, Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, no date; 

http://204.193.246.62/public.nsf/docs/EA7BD28117EEF74D852567CB006B7D20.

158 Here is an example of the effort that an experienced searcher made to find the two documents mentioned (but not cited by 

their Internet addresses) in the Fact Sheet. On November 26, 2000, an NCLIS staff member went to the Department of 

Commerce website (www.doc.gov) to determine the current availability of the reports referenced in the Fact Sheet. The 

document entitled Emerging Digital Economy II could not be found searching the site; however a search of the GPO Catalog 

of U.S. Government Publications (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/locators/cgp/index.html) quickly located the document 

at http://www.ecommerce.gov/ede/report.html. A subsequent search of the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration website (www.ntia.doc.gov) retrieved a slide presentation about the report that included the correct Internet 

address. A similar search for the other report referenced in the Fact Sheet, the first annual report of the U.S. Government 

working group on electronic commerce, found a link to the second annual report (http://www.ecommerce.gov/annrpt.htm), 

but there were no links to the first annual report on the GPO, Commerce or NTIA or websites. A search of the 

www.ecommerce.gov website also located only the second annual report. The site map for www.commerce.gov does not 

include a link to the www.ecommerce.gov website, although there is a link labeled "E-Commerce Initiative" elsewhere on the 

main page. Apparently the www.ecommerce.gov website is not included in the search of the www.commerce.gov website. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-98 

• Does Commerce expect other agencies to do so? 

• If agencies are expected to convert their own publications, at whose expense and with what funds? 

If conversion is not intended or funded, then users will be left with reduced access the historical files 

and to new material that does not find its way onto agency websites. This is of great concern to NTIS 

customers since 36% of NTIS report titles sold in 1998 were over 10 years old. Agency-based web 

servers cannot meet this demand unless substantial investment in backfile conversion is made. It 

cannot be assumed that anything previously published that is not already in web-ready form is of no 

value to the public and no longer requires public access. Clearly this is not the case. 

 

4.I. The current laws requiring transfer of information products to NTIS, GPO and NARA lack 

the means to ensure agency compliance. The absence of enforcement mechanisms with real 

consequences results in incomplete collection and dissemination of the information required by 

the governing statutes. 

Sometimes unpopular agency policy positions disappear quickly from their websites, or never appear 

at all. The depository library community, among others, has expressed concern about the availability 

of such things as studies paid for with taxpayer funds whose results do not support the Department's 

policy positions. The librarians doubt that such studies will be featured on the Department's website, 

distributed through the FDLP, or be readily located by even the most sophisticated search engines. 

Furthermore, the first transfer of power from one Administration to another since the advent of agency 

websites as a major means of public information dissemination raises concerns about what will happen 

to information posted by the prior Administration when new officials take over the agencies. 

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and E-FOIA will remain necessary tools for public oversight 

of government activities, and strengthened rules for transfer of all appropriate agency information 

products to a central facility will help to safeguard current and future access to public information. 

However, central information service agencies are merely stewards for the information entrusted to 

them. The current laws requiring transfer of information products to NTIS, GPO and NARA lack the 

means to ensure agency compliance. The absence of enforcement mechanisms with real consequences 

results in incomplete collection and dissemination of the information required by the governing 

statutes. 

4.J. Serving populations, including lower levels of government, that are not directly associated 

with operating agency missions is secondary insofar as the agency is concerned, but the central 

mission agencies must address the needs of the general public. 

Agency websites are intended to provide agency information (and perhaps other information related to 

the agency mission) to the agency's constituency in support of the agency's mission. That may not be 

consistent with providing government information to those members of the general public, including 

lower levels of government, not specifically associated with the agency mission. Discussing this issue 

in their comments on this assessment, the Government Document Roundtable (GODORT) raised the 

following example: the Defense Department is responsible for providing access to its extensive 

collection of research reports to its internal scientists and engineers and its large contractor 

community. How much effort should DOD expend to insure that non-defense users have adequate 

access to this information and how concerned should the Defense Appropriations Committees be with 

this expenditure? Will a website designed to meet the needs of the Defense community always meet 

the needs of a non-defense university researcher or small businessman who may also find the 

information useful? Should it? 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-99 

The fundamental mission of providing access to government information to avoid duplication of 

research effort and to promote economic growth—a mission that might at one time have been thought 

to be a part of the Department of Commerce—gets lost in the specific missions of the various mission 

agencies and their many websites. 

4.K. The critical distinction is oftentimes not made between a "passive dissemination" agency 

posture and a "proactive dissemination" agency posture. 

Having Defense (as well as other mission agencies) make its (their) technical information available to 

the general public as a near-free by-product of meeting its mission needs is worthwhile and should be 

encouraged. It is not, however, sufficient to fulfill the government's responsibility to make government 

information passively available to, and accessible by the public. There needs to be a clear focus on 

proactive public information dissemination, which is not likely to be present (at least all of the time) in 

the mission agencies. This is not a role for NTIS.159

The differences in definitions as between "access" on the one hand, and "dissemination" on the other 

hand, as between different statutes, has created considerable confusion in this area. Moreover, at least 

some agencies virtually equate dissemination with access, taking the position that once they’ve posted 

a public document to their website, they have no further obligation to the public. In the Commission’s 

view, as stated earlier, this should be the distinction: 

• Proactive dissemination occurs when an agency decides that making information available to the 

public is an essential part of its mission, and moves to create policies and programs that carry out 

this aspect of their mission. The information (except that with any legal restrictions) is made 

available in whatever form and medium the agency wishes to use, through channels that the 

agency believes will deliver it most efficiently and effectively to the end users most in need of it, 

or those who simply wish to have it. In many instances, the agency will announce the availability 

of the information through press releases and current awareness systems or in other ways advertise 

the existence of such information. Proactive dissemination is a knowledge diffusion model that 

emphasizes two-way, interactive communication, including informal, collegial exchanges between 

producers and users. Those agencies who proactively make their information available are 

probably also the most likely to ensure that it is permanently available. 

• Passive dissemination occurs when an agency, in compliance with laws, regulations, or directives, 

places its information with an intermediary disseminator or directly makes the information 

available to those who request it. No effort is made to aggressively reach end users and make them 

aware of the existence and availability of the information. However, no attempt is made to restrict 

the information, and when a user finds out about the information and requests it, the agency or its 

intermediary will make it available to the requester. Passive dissemination is a one-way, producerto-user dissemination model. These agencies are not as likely to be concerned with making this 

information permanently available. 

The absence of explicit, unequivocal, and standard language in all agency mission and program 

statements in their enabling legislation is, in the Commission’s view, a root cause of these differences 

in interpretation, and needs to be remedied. "[Each] agency's mission should be framed as broadly as 

possible. It should enable rather than discourage dissemination."160

 

159 These terms are defined and discussed earlier in the report in the section entitled What This Report Is About and What It 

Is Not About. The issue is also discussed in Findings 1.A and 4.K. 

160 J. Timothy Sprehe, op. cit., page 269. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-100 

4.L. The need for safety net remains, no matter how much information is posted to agency 

websites. 

A central information service agency needs to take advantage of each mission 

agency's efforts to distribute the agency's information to minimize duplicative 

costs, and it also must be prepared to step in and provide access when the 

mission agency cannot or does not. 

There needs to be a safety net or failsafe mechanism to insure that public information that an agency 

chooses not to disseminate, does not post on its website, or takes down from its website is still 

available for permanent public access. That is the role that the National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS) serves for scientific and technical information (STI) and that the Government Printing Office 

(GPO) serves through its Catalog of U.S. Government Publications and the Federal Depository 

Library Program (FDLP) for public information on a wide range of topics. Both agencies are well 

aware that they fall short of comprehensive coverage, in spite of statutory mandates for agency 

submission of information and their own best efforts to obtain information from the agencies.161

Clearly a central information service agency needs to take advantage of individual mission agency 

efforts to distribute the agency's information to minimize duplicative costs, but it also must be 

prepared to step in and provide access when the mission agency cannot or does not. That is currently 

the role for NTIS and GPO, and if the Commission recommendations are accepted, will be the role for 

the proposed Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA).162 

Some of the shortcomings identified in this section can and probably will be overcome in time. Once 

standards are set and adhered to some of these access problems will disappear. As the technology 

improves some of these problems will disappear, but others, as yet unforeseen, may take their place. 

Yet today, with the current state of the Internet, standards and technology, public access to agency 

publications via agency websites is very much a hit or miss proposition. Once again, there is a need for 

a safety net or failsafe mechanism to insure that the public has access to the mission agency reports 

and publications. NTIS and GPO currently provide that safety net, and if the Commissions 

recommendations are accepted, PIRA will provide it.163

4.M. Older format and medium conversions are not systematically and regularly taking place, 

especially digitization of pre-electronic information resources, and preservation of materials to 

protect against technological obsolescence is not a high priority. 

As mentioned in other findings, there is the rather significant matter of providing access to the tens of 

thousands of valuable reports and publications that are not in web-ready form. These require either 

 

161 As noted in Finding 6.C, in spite of the efforts of the federal STI organizations, NTIS estimates that approximately 25% 

of reports that should be submitted to them under the American Technology Preeminence Act are not submitted, and are 

therefore not available for current and future use. While no precise numbers are available, the Government Printing Office 

also estimates that there are a significant number of "fugitive documents" that come under the statutory mandate for inclusion 

in its Catalog of U.S. Government Publications and the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), but are never provided 

to GPO for dissemination. 

162 It should be noted that a significant part of the information available through NTIS comes from DOD, DOE and NASA, 

which provide just such a safety net for the information products of their own agencies through their STI programs. Many 

other publishing agencies lack this additional safety net. 

163 The need for a central authoritative inventory and database is also discussed in also Findings 3.G, 5.D, 5.K, Conclusion 4 

and Recommendation 27. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-101 

expensive conversion to web-ready form, usually done through scanning page images,164 or oldtechnology reproduction (paper and microform) and represent at least one half of the total current 

NTIS demand. Clearly, there is a role here for a central information service and management agency 

such as the NTIS. There is also a substantial and complex challenge for the government to identify and 

prioritize of the holdings that should be digitized, and to establish to costs for that effort. 

Furthermore, systematic and regular conversion of public information resources that are already in 

digital form is not taking place. Consequently, software and hardware obsolescence threaten the future 

availability of significant amounts of public information. The government needs to identify and 

prioritize the conversion of such materials to useable formats and mediums and to establish to costs for 

that effort. 

4.N. Need for specialized searching and locator tools requires substantial new knowledge and 

research. 

In addition to mounting the full text of some of their reports on their websites and thereby providing 

some public access, the mission agencies may also provide some finding tools to identify reports 

sought by users. These tools might include some indexing, abstracting, cataloging, and preservation of 

the reports and publications, or they might not, as is the case with the two Commerce Department 

examples discussed in Finding 4.H above. The tools might include a search engine on the website to 

locate reports or the site might rely upon users accessing commercial Web search engines to locate 

reports on the site. The search engines will work for some reports but not for others. Where reports 

and publications are stored in PDF image form without a full text search capability neither the search 

engine on the site or the commercial search engine will find the document. Where the agency 

chooses—for more efficient searching of its material—to store its reports and publications in a 

separate searchable database on its website, an external search engine will not be able to search the 

contents of the database and the reports will not be found. 

4.O. Permanent public availability of, and access to, government information are critical parts 

of the overall strategy to meet the public information needs of the public, and they must be 

strengthened. Individual agencies are the "first line of defense" in this regard. 

Individual agencies are the "first line of defense" for permanent public 

availability of their own public information resources and have primary 

responsibility for permanent public availability of, and access to, their own 

public information resources, unless they arrange to have that responsibility 

assumed by a central information services agency such as GPO or NTIS. 

As government information has migrated from paper publications to electronic information, the 

concern that such information will no longer be permanently publicly available has become a critical 

consideration. As a result, the term "permanent public availability" has become a very important 

concept that also must be defined in statute.165 

 

164 Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is a preferred method of scanning since it creates a searchable document, although 

it is more expensive since it currently requires post-scanning editing. 

165The Commission uses the phrase "Permanent Public Availability" in lieu of "Permanent Public Access" throughout this 

report because it more accurately reflects the fact that both availability and accessibility must be permanent, not just 

accessibility. Availability refers to the basic entitlement of the people to government information not otherwise restricted 

from disclosure by statute. Accessibility refers to how the public searches for, locates and retrieves the information. There is 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-102 

The Commission defines permanent public availability as "the making available to, and accessible by, 

the public the maximum amount of public information resources on an indefinite, continuing basis, 

free of charge."166 This is further qualified by the statement that "this public availability is distinct 

from the deposit of an official copy for "Permanent Records Retention" by the National Archives and 

includes information resources that may not come under the Federal Records Act definitions of a 

federal record because they are acquired, organized and preserved solely for convenience of public 

reference; furthermore, public availability is meant to convey immediate access through the World 

Wide Web (or its successor technology) or availability through collections, both digital and nondigital, held by a widely distributed national network of libraries such as the federal depository 

libraries." 

"Permanent Access to Federal Records" is a closely related, but different, term, provided for by the 

Federal Records Act. However, many agency publications and other important documents are exempt 

under the provisions of Section 3301 of the Federal Records Act. As a result they are not transferred to 

NARA for permanent retention, and under current law, they will not be available for permanent public 

access unless individual agencies take action to make them so. Many agencies do not schedule all of 

their publications and important documents as permanent records, nor do they have policies to ensure 

permanent public availability whether this information is scheduled as official agency records or not. 

Individual agencies are the "first line of defense" for permanent public availability of their own public 

information resources and have primary responsibility for permanent public availability of, and access 

to, their own public information resources, unless they arrange to have that responsibility assumed by 

a central information services agency such as GPO or NTIS. Agencies such as DTIC and DOE OSTI 

already assume primary responsibility for the permanent public availability of R&D results for their 

agencies since dissemination of that information is directly and explicitly tied to the primary missions 

of their agencies. However, for most other agencies dissemination of information is a secondary, rather 

than a primary function, and therefore they usually rely on the central information services agencies. 

The Federal Depository Library Program provides a mechanism for no-fee permanent public 

availability to information distributed through the program to regional depository libraries. In addition, 

GPO guarantees permanent public access to all public information resources available through GPO 

Access. NTIS provides another mechanism for permanent public availability of scientific and technical 

information through the sale of information in its collection. However, there is a substantial amount of 

public information that is not made available for permanent public access through either program, and 

therefore has no formal mechanism to ensure its permanent public availability. 

Government information to which the public should have access, particularly the results of research 

work that are likely to have long-term value beyond the purpose of the original research, are often not 

permanently availably to and accessible by the public. Public availability should not end when the 

agency sponsoring the research decides—possibly for budgetary reasons—that the report will no 

longer be made available on the agency's website. For example, the research reports on energy 

conservation and alternative energy sources from the early 1970's are suddenly very relevant again 

today, but they are not available on the web servers of the Departments of Energy and Transportation. 

 a substantial amount of agency-initiated information which is available to the public under FOIA and other statues, which is 

not disseminated, an therefore not accessible, to the public. "Permanent Public Availability" as defined and used in this report 

means both availability and accessibility. This issue is discussed more fully in the section entitled A Working Definition of 

Public Information. It is also addressed in Findings 1.A and 5.K and elsewhere in the report. 

166 These definitions are from Appendix 11 in Volume 2 of this report: The Public Information Resources Reform Act of 

2001. Appendix 11 is also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen11.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-103 

NTIS is the failsafe source to make such research results available when they are no longer available 

from the originating agency.167 

In reviewing the current NTIS practices, Commission Panel 1 recommended that, in the future, when 

agencies mount their information on their own servers and make it available to the public free of 

charge, NTIS should provide pointers to the information on the agency's website. When the 

information is removed from the original agency's website NTIS should provide access to the full text 

of the information on its own website or by some other means.168 In the case of older, less frequently 

accessed, information, the public requester will have to purchase a print or microfiche copy of the 

report from the NTIS archive or have a digital copy created through scanning. However, once the first 

person purchases a retrospective report and pays for its digital conversion as part of the purchase price, 

it should then be free on the website. In other words, a surcharge is not charged either to the first, or to 

subsequent purchasers of the same report. This policy may need to be re-examined under the proposed 

new NTIS business model to ensure that their sales program is truly self-sustaining. 

In the past, if a publishing agency deemed a product sufficiently important to print (paper) copies or 

duplicate a CD-ROM, GPO would ride the order and include copies in the FDLP, even if there was an 

electronic copy available on the agency website. Recent instructions from the Congressional 

appropriations committees preclude distribution in tangible form if an electronic copy is available 

online. There is no assurance in the present highly volatile technological environment that government 

information electronic files created today will be useable 10 or 20 years in the future. The absence of 

the authority for the Government Printing Office to ride agency orders for tangible products (primarily 

print) for at least the 53 regional depository libraries, the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), and the Library of Congress increases the likelihood that this information 

will be lost to future generations. Distribution of the tangible copies provides a safety net ensuring 

permanent public availability of the material. 

GPO cannot ride an order for electronic information products that are not in CD-ROM or some other 

tangible form. Therefore, the new policy is that GPO will catalog, announce and point to such public 

information resources. In some cases, GPO is copying the electronic files for storage on its own 

servers to ensure permanent public availability. By statute, GPO operates what should be a 

comprehensive inventory (the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications) and the Federal Depository 

Library Program, which should be a comprehensive collection of government publications. 

Originating agencies are not providing electronic copies to GPO, or even notifying GPO of the 

existence of copies on their websites, so that GPO must expend extensive resources identifying, 

locating and capturing electronic information resources.169 This impedes the development of a 

comprehensive inventory and failsafe collection for permanent public availability. 

 

167 To the extent that this information also falls under the statutory mandate of the FDLP, and much of it does, the federal 

depository libraries should also receive it. Some of this information already flows through GPO to the depository libraries; 

however, many agencies are unaware of this responsibility or falsely assume that by placing the information in NTIS it 

reaches the depository libraries. The recommendation to combine NTIS and the GPO Superintendent of Documents 

responsibilities in a new Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) will help to close the gap in both the NTIS and 

the FDLP safety nets. This is included in Recommendation 5. The text of the proposed legislation is in Appendix 11 in 

Volume 2 of this report and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen11.pdf.

168 GPO is already taking such steps for information that falls within the scope of the FDLP and NTIS should find ways to 

join in this effort so that both programs are strengthened, and new redundant efforts are not initiated. 

169 In fact, if the recommendations of Commission Panel One are followed, NTIS will soon begin a similar process. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-104 

5. FINDINGS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—CENTRAL AGENCIES 

WITH GOVERNMENT-WIDE PUBLIC INFORMATION SERVICES AND INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT ROLES (EXCEPT NTIS) 

5.A. Central government-wide public information services and information management roles 

are still crucial. Overall public information policy and standards leadership and oversight is 

largely unfulfilled. 

Some agencies believe, incorrectly, that it is less important to provide their 

documents to the central public information service agencies since the public 

can get the information directly from the agency (or bureau or division) 

website, notwithstanding the statutory mandates to do so. This is a dangerous 

fallacy. 

As mentioned early in this report, central public information service agencies within the government 

such as NTIS and the Federal Depository Library Program and Sales Program of the Superintendent of 

Documents, as well as the sales programs of the Census Bureau, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

the National Weather Service (NWS), and many others, all have made their mark by providing a 

convenient central service to federal agencies, as well as to their ultimate service beneficiaries—the 

public. The services of these central agencies have had the virtue of eliminating some of the agency 

burdens of distributing information products to the public and to users in other agencies. 

Admittedly, with electronic documents and the Web, agencies can perform many of the same 

functions themselves without significant cost and efforts, so their support for the government-wide 

information services provided by NTIS, the Superintendent of Documents, and others, has begun to 

diminish. Some agencies believe, incorrectly, that it is less important to provide their documents to the 

central information service agencies since the public can get the information directly from the agency 

(or bureau or division) website, notwithstanding the statutory mandates to do so. This is a dangerous 

fallacy. 

When agencies, bureaus or divisions that do not have a primary mission of information dissemination 

go into the information dissemination business, they do so with a different orientation and different 

motives than those of the central information service agencies. The central information service 

agencies ensure easy access to all segments of the public for all of the information products on a 

permanent basis. 

The mission oriented agencies, however, are more likely to provide ready access to only those 

documents that further the agency's mission, and only for as long as they further the agency's 

mission,170 and only to those particular users and user groups in whom the agency's management is 

most interested. Moreover, when agencies stray too far from their legislatively mandated and 

authorized missions, Congress chastises them for doing things that they are not supposed to do with 

their appropriated funds. 

 

170 The major research and development agencies, such as the Departments of Defense and Energy and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), do consider access to relevant research and development part of their 

mission, but have traditionally focused most of the efforts on service to the agency personnel, contractors and grant 

recipients. Recently the Department of Energy and the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) have begun to offer 

access to the general public through their websites. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-105 

Thus, the principles of public access are not achieved uniformly through all of the agency information 

systems, and no one knows which of the thousands of systems is missing what particular information 

products. There is therefore no assurance that the government is providing full public access to what 

should be public information. There is also no assurance on what that information is, or where it is. 

Instead, proper public information dissemination depends on the judgment of thousands of 

unmonitored officials at all levels in thousands of lower level units of government. 

There is a critical lack of overall policy and standards leadership and oversight in the area of public 

information resources management. While it is true that the Congress intended that Administrator of 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) have the overall role of federal information resources management policy oversight (both 

internal agency information as well as public information, and both information technology and 

information content), the Commission believes that a new independent agency in the Executive 

Branch is also needed because the migration of information from pre-electronic to electronic formats 

and mediums has been so rapid, so dramatic, and so pervasive and far-reaching, that there is an 

enormous need for detailed public information resources policy, program, and other guidance, 

standards, procedures, coordination, and so forth. The Commission is convinced that OIRA has its 

hands full in fulfilling its Paperwork Reduction Act statutory mandate for general information 

technology and information policy oversight guidance, of which public information resources are only 

a small part. The recent Y2K crisis was but the latest example of the kind of crisis management, which 

that tiny, hard-working staff must confront and deal with all the time. Yet consider the list of security, 

privacy, e-Commerce, GPEA, copyright, and all of the rest of the challenges that affect all government 

information resources, not just public information resources, any one of which could easily turn into 

yet another crisis! 

5.B. Reorganization of government public information resources management authorities, 

missions, functions, programs, policies, and resources is essential. 

The Superintendent of Documents was established within the Government Printing Office at a time 

when all government publishing was done in print form and the Congress did nearly all printing and 

printing procurement for the entire government. Times have changed. As Executive Branch publishing 

and information dissemination has increased dramatically, the issue of Congress doing so much 

printing and distribution for Executive Branch agencies has been raised as a separation of powers 

issue. The advent of information technology and the Internet/Web have further exacerbated this 

situation and made it virtually impossible and impractical to effectively manage Executive Branch 

information activities from a Legislative Branch office. 

The Commission also strongly believes that Congress will always remain closer 

to the people than the Executive, and therefore Congressional support and 

active legislative oversight of the new agency is absolutely critical. 

Coordination between the branches is also critical to a comprehensive, 

authoritative and effective system for permanent public availability. 

In the Commission’s view, two additional corollary arguments can be made for positioning a new 

government-wide public information policy oversight agency in the Executive Branch: 

• First, the dramatic decline of the role of conventional, pre-electronic printing technology roles and 

capabilities. The government’s public information dissemination system of the 19th and 20th

centuries was largely paper-based, and it made sense then to tie the system closely to printing and 

printing procurement so that the government could obtain the documents for public sale and 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-106 

dissemination as they came off of the printing presses. This system began to break down with 

photocopying and the advent of more sophisticated local printing technology, such as the Xerox 

Docutech machines, and now is breaking down much more quickly with the advent of electronic 

files and the Internet. The Government Printing Office was established in the Legislative Branch 

with the primary purpose of fulfilling Congressional printing requirements. The Executive Branch 

printing was added to the GPO mission to avoid redundancy and provide the printing plant with 

work during the congressional recesses. 

• Second, the dramatically expanding role and capabilities of the Executive agencies to make 

information electronically accessible directly from their websites. By virtue of its size and 

complexity, the Executive Branch produces significantly more public information than either the 

Legislative or Judicial Branches. The advent of the web and the Internet has seen a significant 

expansion in the quantity of public information produced by the Executive Branch in increasing to 

a much higher percentage than in the pre-Internet age. 

The Commission is mindful that in the 19th and 20th centuries the centralized dissemination function 

began as a legislative function, and NCLIS expects this issue will be subjected to robust debate when 

the Congress addresses the Commission’s recommendations in public hearings. Having said that, the 

Commission also strongly believes that Congress will always remain closer to the people than the 

Executive, and therefore Congressional support and active oversight of the new agency and its 

authorities, especially as regards agency compliance, is absolutely critical. Coordination among the 

branches is also critical to a comprehensive, authoritative and effective system for permanent public 

availability. No one branch can do the total job alone. The legislative reform and its oversight must be 

a bi-partisan and bi-cameral. 

Returning to the NTIS situation, there has always been a tension between NTIS and SuDocs. In recent 

years this tension has gotten more intense as NTIS has sought to achieve or retain profitability in 

difficult financial circumstances. Both agencies have similar problems with congressional 

appropriations committees that seek to cut appropriations for their public good functions, mistakenly 

believing either that the costs can be recovered entirely from sales or that, with the Internet, there are 

no costs. Both agencies will have to streamline their operations for the Internet and make the case to 

Congress that their public good functions should be properly funded with appropriated funds.171 

Other issues between the two agencies include differences in bibliographic control and the fact that 

most NTIS documents do not make it into the depository libraries. As long as the two agencies exist as 

separate entities the elusive goal of "one stop shopping" for public information will continue to be that 

much harder to achieve. 

Combining NTIS and SuDocs into a single organization is an obvious alternative. It would provide the 

means to eliminate the unnecessary and unhealthy tension and competition between the two 

organizations, make it easier to standardize cataloging and bibliographic processes, consolidate 

databases and searching tools, and begin a serious move to simpler, unified public access to 

government information. There will also be significant opportunities for cost savings by elimination of 

duplication of effort. Particularly with both agencies moving rapidly toward Web based distribution of 

much of their information, the notion of a consolidation is attractive. 

Several of the study panels addressed the idea of merging the two organizations, and concluded that 

the disadvantages would be primarily political. For example, could such a merger be made to happen 

when either the Executive or the Legislative Branch would be perceived to lose a major central 

 

171 These public good functions are identified in Conclusion 6 and Recommendation 11. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-107 

information distribution component to the other? The likelihood of the Congress approving a shift of 

the Superintendent of Documents (SuDocs) to the Executive Branch seemed so remote to many of the 

panel members that they were reluctant to even propose it, leaving it to the Commission to take up the 

matter.

One panel discussed an even broader reorganization proposal that would consolidate even more of the 

existing public information activities from various agencies than just NTIS and SuDocs. Such a 

consolidation, involving not only NTIS and SuDocs but also related functions from NARA, LC, OMB 

and GSA, was believed to have merit, but admittedly the Commission Panel felt it would be far more 

difficult to achieve politically than just a merger of NTIS and SuDocs. However the Commission, after 

taking into account the views of many experts and stakeholder groups on this matter, believes it is 

appropriate to raise the matter. 

Certainly the combining of the two organizations is not a new idea. For example, as early as 1988 

OTA said: 

Regardless of the ultimate institutional structure, there are significant opportunities for 

improvement in both NTIS and SuDocs product line analyses, development, and 

marketing. Strengthened cooperation between NTIS and SuDocs would not only help 

identify mutually advantageous joint activities, but would seem almost mandatory to 

the extent that both agencies pursue sales of electronic format products and that 

SuDocs enters the low-demand market. The major reasons advanced for improved 

NTIS/SuDocs cooperation (whether or not through formal consolidation) are: 

efficiencies in management and operations, improved coordination of federal 

information dissemination, enhanced opportunities for use of new technology, 

strengthened joint marketing programs, reduced overlap and duplication in 

government dissemination activities, and improved overall public access to federal 

information. Possible drawbacks of or barriers to improved cooperation include: some 

differences in current missions of the NTIS and SuDocs and resultant potential 

problems in more closely coordinating these functions, difficulties inherent in 

cooperative activities of agencies from different branches of government, and 

reluctance on the part of some federal agencies to cooperate with NTIS and/or 

SuDocs, regardless of institutional barriers.172

5.C. A new, independent, central leadership agency is required in lieu of maintaining the status 

quo, which is perpetuating existing fragmented, splintered, and compartmentalized 

organization, program, and mission arrangements and simply "patching them up piecemeal." 

The Commission identified a very wide range of problems in this report under many different 

headings—overlap and duplication of missions and functions, overlap and duplication of data 

holdings, overlap and duplication of programs, lack of funding, obsolete pre-Internet practices, lack of 

uniform public information policies across statutory lines, lack of enforcement of existing laws, lack 

of agreed-upon terms and definitions across different laws, and so on.173

It is fair to ask, "Why cannot the President and the Congress simply fix all of these problems 

individually, utilizing the existing framework of organizations, missions, functions, authorities, 

responsibilities, and programs, perhaps reinvigorated and slightly reorganized? Why, in short, is a 

 

172 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., pages 107 and 119. 

173 A more detailed list appears earlier in this report under "Problems That Need to Be Fixed." 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-108 

brand new organization (the Public Information Resources Administration) required, instead of simply 

maintaining the status quo and dealing piecemeal with each of the problems? 

The Commission is certainly mindful in the current climate of downsizing government and reducing 

the unnecessary proliferation of new agencies, that it shares a heavy burden of proof in defending the 

course of action it suggests. To that end, here are the Commission's main reasons why a new, focal 

leadership agency, a new statute, and new budget authorities are all required: 

1. It is inconceivable to the Commission that the President and the Congress would affirm the idea 

that government information is a strategic national resource without creating a new organization, 

mission, appropriate functions and programs, funding, and so forth; otherwise this national goal 

becomes nothing more than "another high-sounding, motherhood and apple pie statement that 

everybody can agree to and then walk away from. It would be better not to announce a national 

goal at all, than to announce it by paying only lip service. 

2. The existing major central information service organizations, especially the Government Printing 

Office (GPO) and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) have been virtually 

"warring fiefdoms" for decades, since the creation of NTIS. Their missions, functions and 

programs are irreconcilably overlapping and duplicative. That overlap and duplication, when 

translated into staffing, plant capacity, data collections, budgetary authorities, and other resources 

and assets, is extremely wasteful and, indeed, harmful, and has cost the taxpayer a substantial 

amount of monies over the years. To perpetuate that duplication and unnecessary cost is 

unconscionable, not to mention the enormous confusion caused by inconsistent, contradictory, and 

conflicting bibliographic systems of control. 

3. Without a new statute, an independent agency with teeth in its authorities, and a suitable funding 

mechanism such as the Information Dissemination Budget proposed by the Commission in this 

report, individual mission agencies cannot be expected to "see the light" and suddenly disseminate 

their government information to the public in proactive ways because they have no real incentive 

to do so. Quite the opposite—they will undoubtedly continue to get into serious difficulties with 

the Congress if they try to do so on the grounds that they are straying too far from their basic 

mission and program authorities. 

4. Recent initiatives and decisions taken in recent years by the Congress when taken in the aggregate, 

present a certain vision of an electronic, Internet Age government information world that is 

consistent with the strategic future directions advocated in this report. These include: the 

dissolution of the Joint Committee on Printing; several GAO studies that seek to move to a more 

fully electronic repository concept and model for Superintendent of Documents programs, 

including the Federal Depository Library Program, and NTIS; downsizing the Superintendent of 

Documents funding and staffing by decreasing its budgetary authorizations progressively and 

mandating increasing electronic dissemination; and others. The Commission does not see any of 

these initiatives and decisions taken by Congress as pointing to the status quo alternative, that is, 

strengthening GPO-centered or NTIS-centered authorities; quite the contrary. 

5. Some agencies, including OMB and the Department of Justice, advocate an interpretation of the 

Chadha decision174 that removes the GPO monopoly over government printing. Moreover, the 

degree of Executive Branch agency cooperation in providing government information to the 

Legislative Branch is not very "enthusiastic," as measured by the amount of agency originated 

"fugitive material" that never reaches the FDLP. In the Commission's view, providing agency 

information to another Executive Branch agency should result in much less fugitive material. 

 

174 INS v Chada, U.S. Supreme Court, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-109 

6. The Department of Commerce is still intending to close down NTIS despite the fact that no 

Member of Congress has supported legislation to do so. The Commission does not see the logic in 

bolstering an agency's authorities when its current parent (Commerce) does not want it, and the 

new parent proposed by Commerce (the Library of Congress) apparently does not want it either, 

but it most assuredly should not be shut down. 

These are the reasons why the Commission has rejected the status quo as a viable alternative. Any 

possibility of existing organizational self-renewal seems very unlikely, given the history of missed 

opportunities and mounting unmet challenges. 

5.D. Central information services and information management agencies have an even more 

critical role in the Internet age than they did in the pre-Internet age. 

There are some who believe the Web signifies a world of completely dispersed, decentralized, and 

distributed missions and functions that requires virtually no coordination or controls. The Commission 

strongly disagrees with this viewpoint and holds to the view that, for a wide variety of reasons, central 

information services and information management missions and functions are even more critical in the 

Internet Age than they were in the pre-Internet Age. 

The general reason is to ensure overall policy and standards leadership and oversight of public 

information resources management. Some specific reasons are: 

• Concerted and centralized acquisitions of mission agency information products to ensure that 

government-wide collections of information (such as STI information collected by NTIS) are 

complete and the public does not have to confront a bewildering array of different websites. It 

should be remembered that even if powerful new search engines such as the one contained in 

FirstGov eventually succeed in enabling cross-agency searching, the user still would be confronted 

with a bewildering array of websites and web pages once the search was completed, from which to 

obtain the information; and even then there would be no guarantee that all of the information 

needed was identified. 

• Permanent public availability and accessibility policies are more likely to be followed and applied 

in a uniform fashion than if each agency were left to its own policies. 

• Concerted and closer attention can be paid to authentication of the official version of a public 

information product, the minimization of the proliferation of unofficial, unauthenticated versions, 

and a reliable means to distinguish between the two. 

• Single, central, comprehensive and authoritative inventory and database for the major collections 

of public information resources would greatly simplify the initial location, search, retrieval, 

access, and delivery of the information and provide a safety net or failsafe system for all users of 

public information. 

• Information product content is becoming increasingly interrelated with associated services, a 

phenomenon sometimes called "blurring" in the professional literature. There are both positive and 

negative consequences involved that need to be carefully evaluated.175

• Cost effectiveness determinations to consider fully the trade-offs between the relative benefits and 

values on the one hand, and the costs and burdens on the other hand, of alternative information 

formats, mediums, and other publishing considerations. 

 

175 Joan K. Lippincott, op. cit.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-110 

• A standard cataloging and indexing system appropriate for the majority of public users would be 

followed by all agencies, or provided by the central information dissemination agency, to simplify 

and streamline the process of identifying public information products when they are brought into 

the system.176

• The availability of many products, which are not in electronic form, both "current" and "old," 

could be much more easily assured. 

• The availability of products in non-electronic form for those users unable to use Web-based 

information because they are insufficiently computer literate, information literate, or do not have 

convenient and easy access to a public information resources facilities such as a library, could be 

more easily ensured. 

• Assurance, in most cases, that products will make it into depository library system albeit under a 

changed set of guidelines as described elsewhere in this report. 

• A single, authoritative focal point for issuance of policy guidelines for use by agencies to 

coordinate the negotiation of value-added services for government information products for the 

public would be a better approach than the current alternative of no guidance, or conflicting and 

inconsistent guidance. 177

Having said that, it is true, as the Office of Technology Assessment pointed out over ten years ago in 

its report entitled Informing The Nation: 

At a fundamental level, electronic technology is changing or even eliminating many 

distinctions between reports, publications, databases, records, and the like, in ways not 

anticipated by existing statutes and policies. Electronic technologies permit 

information dissemination on a decentralized basis that is cost-effective at low levels 

of demand, but in ways that may challenge traditional roles, responsibilities, and 

policies. In contrast, ink-on-paper printing technology tends to be cost-effective with 

more centralized production and distribution and higher levels of demand. 178

Yet the Commission finds that decentralized and dispersed information handling is a positive 

development that should not be equated to, or confused with, a completely permissive policy 

leadership posture. On the contrary, the Commission believes that a key requirement of a 

decentralized, dispersed information system is a strong central coordination and policy leadership role. 

That is true in the area of financial resources, which is why there is the Treasury Department and the 

OMB. It is also true in the area of human resources, which is why there is OPM. It is true of physical 

resources, which is why there is GSA, and it is true in the area of natural resources, which is why there 

is the Department of the Interior. 

5.E. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches need to take additional steps to strengthen 

existing government-wide policy and procedural guidance. 

Several of the thirteen agencies the Commission surveyed suggested that additional guidance on 

implementation of the E-FOIA from the Department of Justice is needed. Also, from the Office of 

 

176 Such a service is currently provided by the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications produced by the Government 

Printing Office (www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/locators/cgp/index.html). A standard cataloging and indexing systems would 

augment, but not necessarily replace, the specialized controlled vocabulary indexing developed for the primary community of 

users in specific disciplines, such as the National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). 

177 Such an office could also serve as a facilitator of and ombudsman for public sector/private sector partnerships. 

178 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., page 8. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-111 

Management and Budget, strengthened guidance is needed on the Privacy Act as well. The 

reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act in 2001 offers yet a third opportunity to improve 

government-wide policy leadership focus and guidance. In addition, better guidance is needed from 

government central oversight agencies on web posting and content management (which is dealt with in 

the following section). 

Current legislative and executive mandates were initiated largely for a paper-based world, but a great 

deal of agency information is either not available as an electronic version, nor are there any plans to 

ever make the information available in electronic form, for many reasons including that there are 

simply too many graphics and visual materials to make digitizing a cost-effective alternative, there are 

simply too many scientific and technical data attachments, the material is simply too old to be able to 

be deciphered because the physical substrate medium is beyond "refreshing", and many other reasons. 

Moreover, much of this information is incomplete, inaccurate, untimely because it is outdated, not 

officially recognizable (cannot be authenticated) as being a "certified, true copy" by the agency, 

unreliable (e.g., the content is replaced or overwritten without notice), or far more difficult to use in 

electronic form than the paper or pre-electronic forms ever were, because of the vagaries of 

specialized formats or mediums, or proprietary software requirements. 

Then there are problems with privacy and security mandates. At least one agency in the Commission's 

special survey of agency practices sees the need to review existing requirements with the objective of 

strengthening the government's ability to address security and privacy concerns associated with the 

aggregation of unclassified information made possible and increasingly easy to handle and access by 

electronic means such as the World Wide Web. 

Another agency surveyed suggested that federal libraries should be mandated to disseminate agency 

information and copies of everything printed (or issued electronically) should be forwarded to the 

library for cataloging for later retrieval. In some instances, issues/restrictions imposed on delivery of 

information on the web involved security considerations. Security, in particular, is in many cases 

overriding issues of public access and the free flow of information. Another challenge relates to the 

"dot com" (.com) links, which the public does not always understand are not agency endorsements of a 

particular set of information, but represent sites selected to meet specific agency needs. Libraries need 

to be able to apply their criteria for collection building to commercial and other sources. Technology 

should enhance libraries in their ability to disseminate information, not be an end in itself or place 

undue restrictions on what libraries do and do well in delivering content, selectivity and quality. 

The survey of agencies conducted as part of this assessment confirm that agencies need the National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to move quickly to establish Internet Age policies and 

standards for archiving. Responding agencies suggested that NARA should be directed to receive CDROM or DVD, as well as files electronically transmitted to them, or that NARA should "designate the 

PDF or another file formats as acceptable for transfer of official records. Requiring 6,250 bpi tape, no 

extraneous characters, and 7-digit block factor is simply not acceptable in today's environment."179 The 

NARA response to the Commission survey is that they have long received permanent records via CDROM or DVD, and that NARA is preparing to accept electronic file transmissions. Obviously there is 

some misunderstanding between the agencies surveyed and the stated policies of the National 

Archives, perhaps more on the acceptable file formats than the transfer media. The Commission will 

work with NARA to contact the surveyed agencies to ensure they correctly understand NARA policies 

and that NARA fully understands their concerns. 

 

179 The results of the survey of government agencies are available in Appendix 27 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen27.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-112 

5.F. Government-wide business models for self-funding programs for the sale of public 

information must be revised. 

Government-wide information service roles and activities are usually legislatively mandated to be selfsupporting, either through fees paid by other agencies or by funds derived from the sale of public 

information resources. Document sales income is often used not only to pay the costs of actually 

providing the ordered document, but of running the central service and processing the new documents 

into the central system. 

This posture may have made sense when the central service was the primary source for the agency 

information and its sales income could support the central service. Now, however, with agency 

documents being made available for free on the Web, the bottom is cut out from under the central sales 

services, and they are destined to fail financially sooner or later. 

Continuation of present funding policies based on the pre-Internet environment will result in the 

elimination of all of the self-funding programs as one after the other fails to achieve the level of sales 

income necessary to sustain its operations. NTIS just happened to be the "tip of the iceberg" that first 

popped into the public spotlight. However the same significant questions that were raised in the debate 

surrounding the proposal to close NTIS must also be answered for the other self-funding information 

dissemination programs, including: 

• If the public can get free access to agency documents from agency websites at minimal cost to the 

government and the user, why continue to operate other self-funding dissemination programs such 

as GPO Sales Program and StatUSA? 

• Do the central service agencies provide any distinct value that is not otherwise obtained by the 

mounting of documents for public access on agency, bureau, or division websites? 

• Isn't any document of consequence likely to be mounted on one or another of the thousands of 

government websites where it can probably be found by one search engine or another? 

The public good functions180 of the self-funding information dissemination programs should be 

supported through appropriations. The central services agencies perform valuable services for mission 

agencies and for the public. Searching for a specific piece of information across many agency websites 

is like searching for the needle in the haystack. It is a long, complicated, frustrating and costly process. 

The Commission is not the only body to recognize that "front-end" information preparation tasks must 

be undertaken by any agency that is preparing information products for the public (not just NTIS). For 

example, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) commissioned three 

distinguished economists, all of who had held key positions in the Clinton Administration, to study the 

Role of the Government in the Digital Age. 

The authors first established three sets of "Principles for Government Action" which they designated 

as "green," "yellow," and "red." Green principles are those that they asserted the government should 

undertake with little concern; yellow those that the government should undertake with caution; and red 

those that the government should generally not undertake.181 Three principles under the red light 

category were identified. Principle 11 says, "The government (including governmental corporations) 

should generally not aim to maximize net revenues or take action that would reduce competition." 

Then on page 118 of their report, they say: 

 

180 These public good functions are identified in Conclusion 6 and Recommendation 11. 

181 Stiglitz; Joseph E., Peter R. Orszag, and Jonathan M. Orszag, "The Role of Government in a Digital Age." Commissioned 

by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, October 2000; http://www.ccianet.org/digitalgovstudy/main.html.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-113 

Principle 11 raises serious questions about whether NTIS should be a "self sustaining" 

agency. The core clearinghouse function of NTIS, which entails the collection and 

dissemination of government scientific, technical, and engineering information, is 

certainly a proper government role (see Principle 1). But based on the principles 

described above, it would be more appropriate for the Congress to appropriate funds 

for this public good function than to require that NTIS offset losses in the 

clearinghouse with other business lines. 

5.G. The Federal Depository Library Program has a permanent mission, but there is a critical 

need for a new vision and an updated service model. 

The Federal Depository Library Program is a strategic element of the Nation's information 

infrastructure, but as is the case with NTIS, the FDLP is in dire need of a new vision and an updated 

service model appropriate to the Internet Age. John Q. Citizen can communicate just as easily and 

directly, or more easily and directly, with a federal agency website, access a remote library's electronic 

catalog, or even access a foreign archive or museum, as he can walk to, or telephone or fax the nearest 

library in his own home town. Moreover, the word "depository" means to deposit something, meaning 

to physically take it from one place and put it in another place, but eventually there will be few 

tangible information products182 left to "deposit" once public information is almost entirely in 

electronic digital form. Instead of shipping tangible information products, links and pointers to 

electronic files are being established, database access is being provided, and electronic files are being 

transferred over the Internet. In short, the term "deposit " is becoming less and less appropriate as the 

key operative word to describe this program, although the program itself will remain a critical and 

strategic resource. The challenge, however, is that we are a long way from that Utopian state of 

affairs.183 In the meantime, it is imperative that the many interim steps necessary to effect that 

transition be identified and scheduled for action in the short-term, in the mid-term and in the longterm.184

Repositioning and restructuring the FDLP in response to the Internet Age does 

not necessarily mean starting all over from ground zero. On the contrary, the 

Commission found many aspects of the program's traditional mission and 

practices that are not conditioned on changing information policy and 

technology. 

Repositioning and restructuring the FDLP in response to the Internet Age does not necessarily mean 

starting all over from ground zero. On the contrary, the Commission found many aspects of the 

program's traditional mission and practices that are not conditioned on changing information policy 

and technology. For example, the program's proactive public outreach initiatives can and should 

 

182 Tangible information products include any information that can be physical transferred, e.g., a paper publication, a paper 

map, a poster, a document on microfiche, a CD-ROM, or a video tape. This is in contrast to intangible information products, 

such as a file posted on an agency website or available in as an online database. 

183 GPO and the federal depository libraries have been working on this transition since the first CD-ROM titles came into the 

program in 1990. A formal transition plan was developed in 1996 in conjunction with a report to the Congress entitled Study 

to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program 

(http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html) and that effort has accelerated each year. This statement 

is not intended as a criticism of what has already been accomplished, but rather as a recognition that there is much more to be

done. 

184 The Commission defines these three-timeframes as: (1) the short-term: begin within two years or less, (2) the mediumterm: begin in two to five years, and (3) the long-term: begin in six years or later. This is discussed in greater detail in the 

section entitled Timeframes for Address Recommendations at the end of Section C. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-114 

continue. Similarly, Congressional designation and other criteria for becoming a Federal Depository 

Library should be retained. 

The FDLP has long played an important role in providing public access to government information. 

The system, based initially on low cost override printing by the Superintendent of Documents, later 

augmented by microfiche distribution and now moving rapidly to the Internet, provides broad public 

access at no cost to the public user. Most NTIS reports do not make it into the FDLP since they are not 

printed by or through the Government Printing Office.185 Agencies are required by 44 U.S.C. 1903 to 

provide copies of their publications to GPO for the FDLP when those publications are not printed at, 

or procured through, GPO. Many agencies are unaware of this responsibility or falsely assume that by 

placing the information in NTIS it reaches the depository libraries. This has been a longstanding 

source of disagreement between GPO, NTIS and the report originating agencies. There is some limited 

purchasing of NTIS microfiche by a handful of depository libraries and a new pilot program between 

NTIS and GPO to provide some libraries with access to NTIS material on the Web in image form. 

However, generally the depository libraries do not have ready access to NTIS reports. The future 

availability of NTIS reports without charge on the Web should solve this problem since depository 

libraries serve their users through Web access. No fee public access through federal depository 

libraries is one more reason for making sure as many NTIS reports as possible are available without 

charge on the Web. When NTIS reports are available without charge to federal depository libraries, 

GPO will recognize the reports as officially coming under the auspices of the FDLP, as many 

publications on agency websites already are, and no-fee public access to NTIS reports through the 

FDLP will be assured.

Commenting on the draft report and the proposed legislation, Professor Charles A. Seavey of the 

School of Information Resources and Library Science at the University of Arizona said: 

One of the inevitable consequences of the move towards a more electronic 

dissemination system is that every library is essentially a depository library. 

Somewhere along the line Congress, and/or the [Public Information Resources 

Administration (PIRA)] has to figure out a role for the existing FDLP libraries. There 

is a huge pool of expertise in those libraries, yet if the intent of Congress is to move 

towards purely electronic dissemination, what is the point of a paper-based FDLP? 

The Commission strongly believes that there is, and will continue to be, a substantial need for a 

distributed network of libraries nationwide with a commitment to assist the public with the 

identification, search, retrieval and use of public information resources. 

The Commission strongly believes that there is, and will continue to be, a 

substantial need for a distributed network of libraries nationwide with a 

commitment to assist the public with the identification, search, retrieval and use 

of public information resources. 

 These libraries maintain integrated collections of public information in many formats and media 

(paper, microfiche, and digital). More importantly, they have highly trained professional staff that 

understand the information content and formats and can assist users to identify, locate and use public 

information. 

 

185 Most paper publications get into the FDLP because Superintendent of Documents has the opportunity to "ride" the agency 

printing requisition to purchase copies for the program. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-115 

5.H. Central agencies with government-wide information services and information management 

missions are needlessly overlapping, duplicative, and wasteful of resources and operate under 

conflicting and inconsistent policies and guidelines. 

The Commission strongly supports the need for continuing central, government-wide information 

services for the reasons outlined above. Nevertheless, the Commission found that the mission, 

functions, and activities of the existing central information services agencies and programs are 

sometimes needlessly overlapping, duplicative, and inconsistent, and therefore wasteful.186 They also 

operate under conflicting and inconsistent policies and guidelines.187

The government currently has multiple programs and channels for dissemination and access to 

tangible and electronic public information products and services, but the systems are not coordinated 

to guarantee comprehensive coverage and ready access or retrieval for current electronic information 

resources, much less long-term or permanent public availability. The National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) has responsibility for the retention and preservation of the records of 

government, but not necessarily for all publications of the federal government. For example, Section 

3301 of the Federal Records Act of 1950, which defines the term "records," specifically excludes 

"library or museum material made and acquired and preserved solely for reference purposes." NARA 

disagrees with this contention, indicating that the problem lies not with the scope of coverage, but 

rather with the fact that agencies may not be scheduling all publications as records, and/or that 

agencies are applying the schedules incorrectly. In any event, at least from an agency standpoint, there 

is considerable confusion as to the laws, policies, and guidelines they should apply in differentiating 

between records that must be scheduled under the Federal Records Act and other kinds of 

publications, including library reference materials that they retain even though they are not an official 

agency record. 

GPO distributes tangible publications to depository libraries for current and permanent access in 

decentralized locations around the country, and provides cataloging and locator services for tangible 

and online federal public information products and services. In addition, GPO Access provides a 

number of electronic publications from all three branches of government to the public. GPO also 

offers many high-interest federal government print and CD-ROM publications for sale on a cost 

recovery basis. 

Let us be more specific about the inconsistency, overlap, and duplication between GPO and NARA. 

First of all, many of the publications in the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) would never 

be accepted by NARA for permanent preservation as records, but for the fact that they are evidence of 

GPO fulfilling its mission to operate the FDLP. NARA itself will not accept deposits of documents 

from the FDLP except every four years at the end of a Presidential term (and the agency would prefer 

to take them when they are even older). NARA refers routine inquiries for government documents to 

the regional depository libraries (as do many federal agencies). 

In short, the NARA staff indicates it wants to be considered the 'source of last resort,' not the source of 

first resort. Also, NARA does not have a program for interlibrary loans; they will duplicate material 

for a fee, but not lend materials. Depositories do loan as well as duplicate, and, as libraries, are usually 

 

186 The Commission does not mean to imply that all duplication is bad. For example, agencies maintaining information 

collections for internal agency use and agency contractors can focus their resources on these primary constituencies and save 

both time and money for their agencies, while the Federal Depository Library Program has proven a cost effective means of 

establishing distributed collections of government information throughout the nation, accompanied by staff with expertise to 

assist users. 

187 The proposal to consolidated these agencies and programs into a more effective government-wide public information 

resources organization is discussed in Conclusion 4 and Recommendation 2. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-116 

able to respond more quickly when the occasion calls for it. NARA collects information at the end of 

the government information life cycle, not in the middle or at the beginning of it (but NARA believes 

the situation will change with the advent of its Electronic Records Archives (ERA) project, and 

indicates that it has long called on agencies to implement information management controls at the 

front end of the life cycle). 

NARA arranges materials in groupings by archival categories (such as agency programs), not by 

library classification or subject headings. Consequently, accessing at the level of individual items is far 

more difficult using the National Archives Information Locator (NAILS), currently under 

development, and a prototype of the agency’s Archival Research Catalog (ARC), than using library 

systems. In addition, NARA contends that neither ARC nor NAILS were ever intended to be an item 

level catalog of all of the individual files held in the National Archives. 

Finally, NARA is not currently set up (or funded) to handle the volume of requests that would occur if 

that agency were the sole source, or even the primary source, of government publications and 

information products. NARA points out that these inconsistencies arise because depository libraries 

and archives function differently because they have different missions and principles under which they 

operate. The public could care less about bureaucratic distinctions of this kind. The public wants easy, 

uncomplicated and, preferably, one-stop access. 

NTIS collects scientific and technical information (STI) for their permanent collection and makes 

copies available for sale in multiple formats. The NTIS catalog and index are only available to the 

public on a fee basis and most of the STI reports included in the NTIS clearinghouse are not provided 

to the FDLP for no-fee public access.

The Commission fully understands the historical reasons why these different entities with overlapping 

and duplicative central information services and information management missions and functions were 

established. However, the seekers of the data, documents, and literature held by these different entities, 

including agencies, other levels of government, and the public, have the heavy burden of learning and 

utilizing quite different for searching and retrieving policies, procedures, and tools. They should not 

have to bear this burden. 

There is considerable room for harmonizing these statutory requirements by using an overall systems 

approach, including greater utilization of the information life cycle management concept so as to 

integrate searching into a single, unified protocol. The Commission addresses this approach in greater 

detail in its White Paper dealing with the government information life cycle management approach.188

5.I. Central mission agencies may also overlap with cabinet departments and independent 

agencies with operating missions with respect to public information resources collections and 

services. 

A number of operating agencies sponsor subject-oriented information clearinghouses for material in 

tangible and electronic formats in no-fee or cost recovery programs (DTIC, ERIC, MEDLINE, 

NCJRS, etc.). In addition, many agencies operate public information centers, public reading rooms, or 

specialized depository programs (such as the Census Bureau, PTO). As a rule, however, operating 

agencies are focused exclusively, or primarily, on their statutorily mandated missions, which may or 

may not emphasize provision of current or long-term broad public access to and dissemination of their 

information products to the public. This occurs despite Title 44 requirements for distribution to GPO, 

 

188 The White Paper on government information life cycle management is available in Appendix 16 in Volume 3 of this 

report and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen16.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-117 

the Administrative Procedure Act, and legislation requiring submission of scientific and technical 

reports to the NTIS. 

5.J. Lack of uniformly applicable guidelines and standards to create electronic information 

products causes confusion at all levels of government. 

Agencies are producing an increasing volume of their information products and services on a 

decentralized, local basis through the Internet. Nevertheless, public access to these web-based 

information resources may be limited, since they are not consistently included in the various existing 

government programs that foster information dissemination or information access, such as the FDLP, 

GPO Access or NTIS. Moreover, there are no agreed-upon standards used by federal agencies to 

produce tangible or online electronic products. The lack of standards causes problems for access to 

current materials, as well as for preservation and permanent public availability of historical materials. 

Likewise, there are no coordinated programs or standards for permanent availability or preservation of 

either tangible or online electronic media across all branches of government, much less across all 

levels of government. Notwithstanding this finding, the Commission was pleased to see that new 

edition of Guide to Federal Publishing189 that will soon be issued by the Federal Publishers 

Committee and the Interagency Council on Printing and Publishing Services addresses many of the 

issues of publishing electronic information. 

5.K. The Government Information Locator Service (GILS) and metadata are critical to the 

national information infrastructure. 

The crucial question to address is whether the government can and should 

invest the resources required to add metadata/indexing functionalities to all

federal government information or whether priorities, primarily the needs of the 

American public to gain access, should be established as to which classes of 

information require such detailed handling. 

An example of an attempt to instill some discipline in the federal government, so that information, or 

information sources, can be discovered and accessed is Government Information Locator Service 

(GILS). The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3511) directed the establishment of GILS 

to help the public and federal, state, and local government agencies locate and access information 

throughout the federal government. In concept, GILS could also assist agencies in complying with 

aspects of the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. 3301) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as 

amended in 1996 (5 U.S.C. 552). To date GILS, however, has been less successful than anticipated for 

a wide variety of reasons. Federal components that had significant information management 

organizations or interest (e.g., GPO, EPA, NTIS, DOD) successfully implemented GILS. GPO, with 

its GPO Access and NTIS with its FedWorld, implemented GILS systems that can serve all federal 

agencies and the public at large. 

As well intentioned as these efforts are, they are at the mercy of the various federal agencies 

implementing GILS. Many federal agencies, having higher spending priorities than GILS, did not 

implement GILS and OMB failed to enforce the requirement. OMB Bulletin 95-1, "Establishment of 

Government Information Locator Service," which guided the initial startup of GILS, expired. In lieu 

thereof OMB Bulletin No. 98-03, November 18, 1997 requires agencies to describe GILS progress in 

their annual reporting under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. It is an irony that GILS has been 

 

189 U.S. Federal Publishers Committee, op. cit. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-118 

far more successfully implemented by many states and internationally through the Global Information 

Locator Service—the international byproduct of the U.S. GILS—than in the U. S. federal government. 

Problems also exist in regard to government locator services. GPO Access, for example, contains a 

broad array of links to federal public information resources. Yet in many instances, GPO must on its 

own seek out these online resources in order to assure that the general public is aware of them. Similar 

problems plague the Library of Congress Thomas system in its collection of congressional 

information, and NTIS FedWorld in its efforts to collect federal scientific and technical information. 

The judicial branch has proven particularly problematic in terms of providing locator services of even 

the most basic nature. This is due primarily to the lack of a defined and implemented program for 

posting opinions and court decisions online. 

Beyond GILS, there are very important technical questions relating to the need to standardize metadata 

elements. 

There is currently much discussion about the need for developing and deploying "metadata" or 

indexing systems to aid in the retrieval of documents, data sets, and other digital objects. If federal 

government agencies do not go to the effort of adding metadata/indexing terms to the digital objects 

they are providing on the WWW, neither the Internet search engines nor agency/interagency search 

engines can retrieve them in a reliable or consistent way or rank them for the user. The result of 

skipping the indexing step is a bad experience for most users. 

The more information that becomes available in electronic form, the more necessary it is to provide 

would-be users of the information with a summary of the contents to facilitate indexing and retrieval. 

Of the technologies available today, many automatic summarization programs generally extract only 

the first few lines of text as the summary. This method works if the author of the document has 

summarized its findings in the first few lines. Too frequently, however, the first few lines tell the user 

nothing about the contents of the document. This exacerbates the ability of the public to sort through 

an answer set effectively—one that may include hundreds of possible "hits"—to find the information 

sought. In short, summarizing or abstracting information has classically been done by humans, and 

often at great expense. That situation may well continue into the foreseeable future, but there are 

glimmers of some very promising avenues of research that could dramatically improve the situation 

that need to be watched carefully. 

The crucial question to address is whether the government can and should invest the resources 

required to add metadata/indexing functionalities to all federal government information or whether 

priorities, primarily the needs of the American public to gain access, should be established as to which 

classes of information require such detailed handling. 

There is another side to this issue. The following response from one the Departmental libraries queried 

for this effort is typical of the responses from others: 

The Main Departmental Library does not have a formal or informal arrangement with 

another government agency. We use the Library of Congress and GPO extensively 

and are pleased with the responses. We are a selective depository library, which 

adequately meets the needs of our Department. We receive minimal requests from 

other government agencies to share depository items. I would estimate that 50% of 

our clients' needs are satisfied via free websites. We rely on private sector products for 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-119 

about 30% of the needs of our Departmental clientele. Standardization could improve 

the environment of interagency sharing of information.190

Finally, as pointed out in the National Research Council’s publication, The Unpredictable Certainty: 

Information Infrastructure 2000,

191 government databases provide a natural focus for government 

applications of information infrastructure, given the federal government’s unique collections of data 

and information that are of broad interest and might be more broadly used in the future if made more 

accessible. The Government Information Locator Service (GILS) is a crosscutting information access 

initiative that could be used to explore various approaches and implementation issues. 

5.L. The Government Information Locator Service (GILS) and FirstGov are both commendable 

initiatives and should receive continued support for development and testing. 

The Government Information Locator Service (GILS) established under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 might have been expected to solve some of the problems identified in this section, and perhaps 

to a very limited extent it has. However, GILS has not been widely implemented throughout the 

government. The GILS record structure was publicized and agencies were required to use GILS but 

were permitted wide latitude in how GILS was to be applied. The result, to the extent that agencies 

participate, is a lack of consistency and predictability in search results. 

Similarly, the very new FirstGov.gov website might solve some of these problems in time, but the 

initial implementation of the website suggests that much work remains to be done, particularly with 

respect to search precision, which is critical to the retrieval of research reports, legal materials and 

many other types of public information. 

Even if GILS or FirstGov improve dramatically, some issues—such as detailed searching within a 

very large database such as the full text of NTIS reports—will not be solved by these very large 

government-wide systems. Thus, there will continue to be a role for NTIS. 

5.M. Unnecessary duplication and overlap among agencies with central government-wide 

information services and information management roles and activities, particularly with respect 

to cataloging and classification of information resources, is counterproductive and must be 

resolved. 

The relationship between NTIS, the Superintendent of Documents, including the Federal Depository 

Library Program, the Library of Congress and the national libraries, and NARA, clearly involves some 

unnecessary conflict, overlap, and duplication among these organizations and their missions and 

functions, insofar as effective and efficient information and records interchange is concerned. Among 

other things, these agencies use different cataloging and indexing rules, thesauri and classification 

schemes that make it difficult to compare their holdings and to identify and merge records describing 

the same information. There is a critical need to harmonize their respective roles, especially when it 

comes to metadata standards and guidelines governing data, document, and literature interchange. It 

neither does the government nor the public any good for these agencies to maintain staunchly that their 

missions and functions are each disparate and unique, and the agencies therefore have no legal 

obligation to harmonize their inconsistencies and incompatibilities. In the Commission’s view, that 

 

190 The results of the Commission survey of federal agencies are available in Appendix 27 in Volume 3 of this report and 

also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen27.pdf.

191 National Research Council, NII 2000 Steering Committee, The Unpredictable Uncertainty: Information Infrastructure 

Through 2000, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-120 

mindset must give way to an enlightened discourse on how to streamline, simplify and integrate 

inconsistent and conflicting information policy requirements. This challenge, while beyond the 

capabilities of the four panels to resolve because of the very severe time constraints under which they 

operated, nevertheless is addressed squarely by the Commission in this report based on overall 

research, findings, and conclusions. 

In a nutshell, recordkeeping systems utilize essentially file-based ("container"-

based) classification schemes oriented to administrative categories, whereas 

library systems utilize essentially content-based classification schemes oriented 

to technical content. Yet what most users need is the answer to a specific 

question, using words and terms and provided in a format that they can 

understand and use. They neither want nor need a collection of documents or 

records that they have to sift through, evaluate, reorganize, reclassify, and 

translate before they can find the answer to their question. Even when records 

are indexed, the guiding indexing concepts are quite different. Therein lies a 

massive harmonization challenge! 

For example, agency records managers have always used internally devised methods for indexing that 

meet their agency’s culture. NARA has never directed agencies to use standard indexing terms, 

because records are considered to be the property of the creating agency until they are submitted to 

NARA as archives. However, even stored in NARA record centers, the records are still the property of 

the creating agency, and this is critical for Privacy and FOIA reasons. Once records go the NARA for 

permanent storage, they are indexed using NARA methods. Even the key terms used are different. 

Archivists use the terms "genre" or "form of material" to cover what is defined by the word "format" 

in non-archival settings. In short, there is much room here for standardization in the interests of public 

information searching and retrieval simplification and streamlining, without sacrificing either agency 

customization requirements or the statutory obligations of NARA. In a nutshell, recordkeeping 

systems utilize essentially file-based ("container"-based) classification schemes oriented to 

administrative categories, whereas library systems utilize essentially content-based classification 

schemes oriented to technical content. 

Yet what most users need is the answer to a specific question, using words and terms and provided in a 

format that they can understand and use. They neither want nor need a collection of documents or 

records that they have to sift through, evaluate, reorganize, reclassify, and translate before they can 

find the answer to their question. Even when records are indexed, the guiding indexing concepts are 

quite different. Therein lies a massive harmonization challenge! 

There appears to be—especially at this stage of Internet development—a clear need for an NTIS-like 

organization to provide overall management of the system that provides public access to agency 

scientific and technical reports and publications. Sometimes this organization would directly provide 

public access to reports and publications, sometimes it would simply point to where the material is 

available on agency websites and it would insure that all content is available and accessible. It would 

also provide access to private vendors seeking to redistribute public information. Closing NTIS before 

such alternative systems are in place and operating would deprive the public of the access to 

government information that was available in pre-Internet days. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-121 

6. FINDINGS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—THE NATIONAL 

TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS) 

6.A. The pre-1980's NTIS sales-based business model is an historical artifact that is no longer 

appropriate. 

In the 1970's and earlier, NTIS and its predecessor organizations received a mix of funding from 

appropriations, sales income and reimbursements from other agencies. The basic business model, 

however, was based on sales revenue, with report sales and subscription income generating the lion's 

share of revenue. Appropriations in the earlier years were used primarily for the costs associated with 

acquiring publications and for processing the publications into the NTIS collection—the costs of 

indexing abstracting, creating master microfiche and archiving master copies. Sales income was 

recovered from the purchasers of publications and subscription services, essentially for the incremental 

costs of providing these services, although in later years excess sales income was also used for input 

processing to offset declining appropriations. Reimbursements from other agencies were received to 

cover the costs of the services provided to these agencies. 

6.B. The transition in 1980 to a sales income model was detrimental to core mission of the NTIS. 

Over the years there was an ongoing pressure to reduce appropriations and increase sales income and 

in good times—with many new publications coming in and with substantial sales—this was feasible. 

Increasing prices and new products combined with growing sales volume contributed to growing sales 

income. In fact, all appropriations for input processing were phased out by 1977 and sales income was 

used to pay all input costs from that point on. 

In 1992, as part of the American Technology Preeminence Act (15 USC 3074b-1), Congress added the 

requirement that "operating costs...associated with the acquisition, processing, storage, bibliographic 

control, and archiving of information and documents shall be recovered primarily through the 

collection of fees." This had the effect of locking in the practice of shifting the costs for the central 

collection and initial processing of the NTIS publications for public availability from the general 

taxpayer to the purchaser of NTIS products and services. The government was essentially abandoning 

responsibility for paying for the management and organization of its information, the very library-like 

functions that have always been taxpayer-financed. The report buyer—whose tax dollars had already 

paid for the agency research and the preparation of the research report itself and who was being 

charged the incremental cost of distribution of the report—was now also being asked to pay the costs 

of making the reports accessible to the public through a central repository. 

This had the effect of making NTIS more entrepreneurial and aggressive in its business dealings to 

raise the operating funds lost in the appropriation. These activities were sometimes at the expense of 

the core mission for collection, organization and dissemination of scientific and technical information 

(STI). Competition with the Superintendent of Documents for popular titles increased with NTIS 

seeking to offer the publication-originating agency a more attractive arrangement to secure the 

publication for its list. Deals were struck with private vendors a development that had the Commerce 

Department Inspector General "...concerned that in order to replace lost sales, NTIS is seeking 

business opportunities on the perimeter of its statutory mission, where it risks competing against 

private businesses." 192 

 

192 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General, Semiannual Report to the Congress, Washington, DC: 

Department of Commerce, March 31 1999, page 14. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-122 

Electronic enabling technologies have changed the basic nature of what NTIS needs to do to fulfill its 

statutory mission. 

6.C. Agency competition with NTIS began in the 1990's with free web availability. 

Concurrently, in the late 1980's and 1990's, because of the strong economy there was a shift from 

publicly funded research to private research and as a consequence the number of government research 

reports provided to NTIS declined. At the same time, with the growth of the Internet, agencies began 

to make their research reports available on agency websites for free, competing with NTIS report 

sales. The combination of lower new report input (a 35% drop in items added to the collection from 

1993 to 1998) and competing free sources for the information sold by NTIS, resulted in declining sales 

(a 43% drop in publications sold from 1993 to 1998). This in turn led to the financial difficulties of 

NTIS. In August 1999, based on these financial difficulties and political considerations beyond the 

control of NTIS—possibly relating to the Govsearch and World News Connection controversies—the 

Department of Commerce recommended the closing of NTIS and the transfer of its archive to the 

Library of Congress.193

6.D. Incomplete holdings available on agency websites force users to search both publishing 

agency and central mission agency websites, such as NTIS FedWorld. 

If the picture painted in the Department of Commerce Fact Sheet and Press Release194 is correct, all 

agencies will mount all of their publications and reports on their own websites, which are then kept 

there as long as the public has a need to access the information. Powerful search engines search the 

full text of all the reports across all agency sites to identify the specific information the public user 

requires. The identified full text of the publication is then available for free downloading from the 

agency website. Thus, the public has free access to all public information all of the time and anything 

required can be located with ease and there is no need for a central NTIS, a central Superintendent of 

Documents or any central document locating service or information accessing tools. This picture, 

however, is not anywhere near accurate. 

Unfortunately, not all of each agency's public information is available on the agency's website and 

perhaps much of it never will be. What is there today may not be there tomorrow. Not all of the 

information on the Web can be searched and found with the search engines. The Commission strongly 

believes that the United States cannot afford to rely upon the simplistic and utopian picture painted by 

the Department of Commerce, including the shutdown of the government’s central information 

repositories. 

6.E. The NTIS collections are "of value to business and industry" regardless of subject matter. 

NTIS' predecessor organizations began operations with a scope limited primarily to scientific, 

technical and engineering information, the so-called STEI gray report literature. Over the years the 

scope of the NTIS collection expanded to include social science and business information to meet the 

needs of government agencies for the distribution of their content. 

 

193 U.S. Department of Commerce, "Commerce Secretary William M. Daly Announces Intention to Close National Technical 

Information Service," Press Release, Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, August 12, 1999; 

http://204.193.246.62/public.nsf/docs/FFF05791D63331D1852567CB00693643; and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

"Providing the American People Information for the 21st Century, op. cit. 

194 Ibid. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-123 

These changes in scope were approved in a 1954 Controller General opinion, later codified in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 1180). Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information is 

defined as "information that bears on business and industry generally, such as economic information, 

market information and related information" that "can embrace matters beyond the restricted field of 

applied science and the mechanical arts" so long as it is "limited to information which has a direct 

relationship to business, industry or technology" (15 CFR 1180.2). 

The Commission does not believe NTIS' scope should be restricted to science and technology 

narrowly defined. However, the scope should not include general public information that does not 

have a strong and direct relationship with business, industry or technology. In its efforts to find 

revenue to support its operations, NTIS has expanded to scope of its coverage well beyond its primary 

mission.195

In short, the NTIS mission, which began (in the days when it was known as the Publications Board) 

with a focus on the cataloging, announcement and sale of copies of captured World War II technical 

documents, has changed and expanded over the years, and was later expanded by statutes such as the 

American Technology Preeminence Act. There was some sense among the study participants that in 

recent years the mission and scope had expanded well beyond the statutory boundaries in part to 

increase revenues to offset declining sales income and decreasing appropriations. The scope of NTIS 

information has expanded from scientific and technical reports to almost all manner of reports and 

publications of interest to business, industry and technology 

6.F. NTIS operations in the Internet age require searchable access that cuts across agency 

boundaries. 

The roles for NTIS in the Internet age—at least until such time as improvements in standards and 

technology solve some of the current problems—would be to provide: 

1. Searchable access to the reports and publications published by the mission agencies, particularly 

to those users outside the agency's constituency, 

2. Pointers to where the report may be obtained on an agency (or other) website, 

3. Backup distribution of the report or publication content itself when it is no longer available from 

the originating agency or where the user requires a paper or microfiche copies and the agency only 

provides electronic access, and 

4. Permanent Availability and Accessibility. 

Providing searchable access to agency reports has been the basic business of NTIS and its 

predecessors since its inception over half a century ago. NTIS performs this function by cataloging, 

indexing and abstracting the reports of the smaller agencies and other sources that do not perform 

these tasks for their own audiences and creates the searchable NTIS database. For the larger agencies 

that do this work themselves (DOD, DOE, NASA, etc.), NTIS obtains their cataloging, indexing and 

abstracting information in machine readable form, reformats it, if necessary, and adds it to the 

searchable NTIS database. NTIS now augments this with similar data obtained by NTIS' web capture 

of agency documents not forwarded to NTIS. The resulting NTIS database provides consistent 

searchable access to the NTIS collection across all of the participating agencies. 

 

195 For example, the Department of Commerce has questioned NTIS' role in the dissemination of tax forms for the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS), and GPO has questioned the need for NTIS to distribute the Government Manual and other GPO 

general interest "best sellers." There is additional discussion of these issues under Recommendation 14. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-124 

This database should be made available on an NTIS website for free public search, thus providing free 

(publicly funded) access to a searching capability of the information collected by NTIS. This same 

capability would provide depository libraries and their patrons with convenient, free searchable access 

to the NTIS database. Note that this is not access to the content of NTIS reports, but only to the 

database of information about the reports, usually referred to as the bibliographic database. 

6.G. Linking to documents on agency websites is an essential service that NTIS should offer. 

Providing access to information about the document is only the first step. The Commission Panel 

recommended that NTIS provide the user with a means of obtaining the documents identified. In the 

past, NTIS sold the documents from its warehouse, produced copy on demand when requested or 

distributed microfiche. In the future, in addition to these established methods of distribution, NTIS 

will also point the user to the document on the agency's website where the full text of the document is 

available for free. Whenever there is a Web version of the document available, NTIS, through its 

bibliographic database, would point the user to the agency's Web location where the document can be 

viewed or downloaded. In some instances a document that is not available on an agency's site, might 

be available at the Government Printing Office (GPO) or on a depository library site under the Federal 

Depository Library Program Electronic Collection. NTIS would then point to that site. The 

Commission notes that the Government Printing Office (GPO) is already taking steps to establish such 

links for information that falls within the scope of the FDLP, as most of the NTIS collection does, and 

NTIS should find ways to join in this effort, so that both programs are strengthened, and new 

redundant efforts are not initiated. 

The Commission Panel recommended that NTIS develop and operate, in conjunction with the 

originating agencies,196 a Persistent Uniform Resource Locator (PURL)197 system for all of the agency 

documents included in the NTIS database. This would provide a means of maintaining the public 

accessibility of documents on agency websites as the agencies move the documents from site to site 

and from location to location. The NTIS database would provide the PURL address of the document 

so that users of the database would always be able to access the complete text of the document 

available for free on the Web. NTIS would operate a PURL server, which keeps track of actual 

document locations on the Web updated with new location information provided by the agencies or by 

monitoring of existing links to documents in the database by NTIS. Again, the Commission notes that 

the Government Printing Office (GPO) is already taking such steps for information that falls within 

the scope of the FDLP, and NTIS should find ways to join in this effort, so that both programs are 

strengthened, and new redundant efforts are not initiated. 

 

196 As noted elsewhere, GPO is already taking such steps for information that falls within the scope of the FDLP. Therefore, 

NTIS should not just cooperate with the originating agencies, it should find ways to join in the GPO effort, so that both 

programs are strengthened, and new redundant efforts are not initiated. 

197 The use of PURL here is not a definitive statement of the appropriate technology. Another option identified by the 

Commission is the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), currently used by the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). The 

statement here is rather an indication that some effort must be made to provide stable links to information on agency 

websites. It should be noted that establishing a PURL or a DOI cannot ensure that the agency will maintain the publication on 

its website; it merely increases the chances that the user will find the information as long as it does remain on the website. 

Moreover, there may be some places in this report where the term "PURL" is used, where the term "URN" (Uniform 

Resource Name) may be more technically appropriate because in some cases individuals will use DOIs or handles or other 

types of URNs instead of PURLs. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-125 

6.H. NTIS should continue to use the profile-driven dissemination approach for proactive 

dissemination. 

There are other types of dissemination not recognized by the definition in OMB Circular A-130 that 

says that dissemination is when "the government provides the public with information without the 

public having to come and ask for it" [emphasis added]. Some government agencies allow users to 

establish a profile, thus "asking" for specific categories of information that are then sent out to them 

when information matching the profile becomes available. The National Technical Information 

Service (NTIS) is one example of a profile-driven approach to dissemination. NTIS provides its 

customers documents based on individual user profiles. These documents can be in paper, microfiche 

or electronic form, but the most popular form is through the SRIM product, Selected Research In 

Microfiche. What NTIS does is not unique. Most information management organizations provide 

similar services. The profile-driven dissemination approach addresses the challenge of "information 

overload" to specific users or organizing by allowing users to tailor information services to meet their 

specific needs. 

The ability of individuals to address some of their "information overload" through portal technology is 

just beginning. Based on personal preferences, portals allow individuals to tailor a web page to 

establish such things as calendars, automatic access to favorite sites, and notification of updates to 

information sources that meet their specific needs. Portals can also be established for the organization 

or enterprise as a whole. These allow organizations to combine internal business process information 

and appropriate content found on the Internet as a whole. They can also be used to help those both 

internal and external users find information located throughout the enterprise. 

The recently announced FirstGov portal is an example. This website is intended, when mature, to 

provide a single online information portal that connects people with U.S. government information. 

FirstGov allows users to search all 27 million federal agency web pages at one time. The website 

provides access to the home pages of major agencies and entities in all three branches of government, 

a section that provides topics of current interest to web users (e.g., a direct link to the National 

Weather Service (NWS) during hurricane season, to NASA during a shuttle launch, or to IRS during 

tax season), as well as key sites that access state and local government web pages. 

6.I. NTIS should become a backup distribution source. 

The user would normally only come to NTIS and pay for a document when it is not available for free 

on a website or when the user desires a paper or microfiche copy, a magnetic tape or a CD-ROM. 

Some users would no doubt find paper or microfiche preferable to Web access and would choose to 

pay NTIS for the copy, paying the full incremental cost of distribution even though free Web access is 

available. 

In addition to pointing to documents on agency websites, an NTIS website would provide free access 

to the full text of selected NTIS documents in reasonable demand (recent important documents) which 

are not available on agency websites. To do this effectively, NTIS will have to change the way in 

which it scans reports for the Web. NTIS currently scans documents in image-only format, which does 

not provide for searchable full text, limits the utility of the product offered on the Web and increases 

the costs of storage and electronic distribution. By moving to fully electronic documents with encoded 

text, NTIS can lower storage and bandwidth costs and improve product utility. This will however 

increase scanning costs incurred by NTIS. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-126 

There will continue to be a substantial number of image-only scanned documents in the NTIS system 

for some time (representing at least the three-year backfile that has already been scanned). Over time 

more and more of the publications available from NTIS should be available in full electronic format, 

either forwarded to NTIS from other agencies or scanned in full electronic form (OCR) by NTIS itself. 

All of these documents in Web-ready form, whether in image-only form or in full electronic form, 

would be made available to the public without charge from an NTIS website if they are not available 

on the originating agency's website or some other publicly accessible website, e.g., Depository library 

site. 

As a result of this approach—substantial free access to documents on agency and NTIS websites—

NTIS document sales income will continue to decline dramatically as more and more content is made 

available on the Web without charge. This expected decline in sales income would have to be 

considered in the new business model. Specifically, the notion of free public access to NTIS reports on 

an NTIS website requires the appropriation of funds for the so-called public good operations of 

NTIS.198

6.J. NTIS has a permanent mission, but needs a new vision and new business model. 

Only one Commission expert disagreed with the basic idea that the fundamental reason for an NTIS 

remains valid. This expert believes that agency publishing on the Web has, or will soon completely 

replace the need for an NTIS, no matter where it might be organizationally located. All other experts 

and the four panels agreed that the NTIS mission remains valid in the Internet Age, but needs to be 

revisited, updated, and strengthened.199 

7. FINDINGS RELATING TO INTERAGENCY GROUPS (E.G., CIO COUNCIL, FEDERAL 

WEBMASTERS FORUM, CENDI, FLICC AND OTHERS) 

7.A. CENDI was established because of an absence of central official STI policy and oversight 

authority in the Executive Branch. 

CENDI was originally the Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense, Information group, a voluntary group 

comprised of the heads of Commerce's National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Energy's 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), NASA's Scientific and Technical Information 

(STI) program, and Defense's Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). 

The four founding organizations from some of the largest federal agencies involved in research 

development were principally involved in managing STI recorded in technical reports. This type of 

report is not formally published but records results of federal R&D done either in house or through 

contracts or grants. Such reports may or may not be made publicly available since they may contain 

information falling within the exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or classified for 

reasons of national security. The Energy, NASA, and Defense organizations traditionally shared their 

collections with each other and provided publicly available information to NTIS for acquisition by the 

general public. In 1986 the National Library of Medicine (NLM) joined CENDI. NLM, while not 

handling technical reports, had many of the same information management challenges. Thus, with 

these five organizations meeting regularly and sponsoring working groups and standing committees, 

 

198 These public good functions are identified in Conclusion 6 and Recommendation 11. 

199 The details of the new vision and business model are contained in Recommendations 10 and 11. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-127 

the federal agencies responsible for over 90% of federal R&D had established a voluntary interagency 

information sharing and information management effort to fill the void left with the disestablishment 

of COSATI. CENDI now has ten members from nine different departments or agencies. The CENDI 

Secretariat is paid for through member contributions. 

CENDI has certainly been a success story and exemplifies what can be accomplished through informal 

interagency cooperation. 

7.B. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is also a success story. 

The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is an interagency committee, organized under OMB 

Circular A-16. Organized in 1990 the FGDC promotes the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination 

of geospatial data on a national basis. The FGDC is composed of representatives from seventeen 

Cabinet level and independent federal agencies. The Steering Committee sets high-level strategic 

direction for the FGDC as a whole. The Coordination Group advises on the day-to day business of the 

FGDC. The FGDC Secretariat staff provides staff support for FGDC committees. For example, the 

Federal Geographic Data Committee coordinates the development of the National Spatial Data 

Infrastructure (NSDI). The NSDI encompasses policies, standards, and procedures for organizations to 

cooperatively produce and share geographic data. The federal agencies that make up the FGDC are 

developing the NSDI in cooperation with organizations from state, local and tribal governments, the 

academic community, and the private sector. 

Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt not only supported the FGDC, but attended many of its 

meetings himself, which was a wonderful inducement to his own agency’s participation and that of the 

other departments as well. Some believe that a contribution to its success is that it is not really 

centrally managed, other than routine housekeeping matters. Instead, all participating agencies 

contributed to the sub-group efforts. 

Both the CENDI group mentioned in the preceding finding and the FGDC efforts mentioned here are 

excellent examples of what can be done to share information among agencies. There are three keys to 

these efforts. One key is agency recognition that their information may have a wider value beyond its 

original use. A second key is the existence of either a central agency information management 

organization or an organization that acts as one. A third key is some level of funding. 

7.C. The CIO Council still leaves unfulfilled expectations vis-à-vis information content 

management. 

The President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) Panel on Transforming 

Government said in its Finding 3 that: 

The Federal CIO Council's ... mandates require them to focus primarily on near-term 

operational issues and acquisitions. Budget planning processes make it difficult to carry out 

effective cross-agency coordination and execution and the long-term research efforts that 

many of the goals require.200 

Discussing this finding, the Panel noted that: 

 

200 U.S. Executive Office of the President, National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and 

Development, Transforming Access to Government Information Through Information Technology, op. cit. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-128 

While the CIO Council has established mechanisms for sharing results and lessons, the 

process of creating standardized processes and information representations, eventually leading 

to cross-agency transactions and information federation and integration, is much harder and 

requires cross-agency budget planning and execution. Creating cross-agency budgets requires 

substantial work and, therefore, is used only for large initiatives. Depending on cross-agency 

plans is very risky because of the uncertainty that all participants will receive adequate 

funding. Therefore, cross-agency projects and initiatives currently have to be large enough to 

warrant the effort but partitionable enough that no one really must depend on anyone else’s 

appropriations or performance.201 

In its Fourth Annual Top Ten Challenges Survey, the Association for Federal Information Resources 

Management (AFFIRM) did not identify a single challenge that had to do specifically with 

information content or improvement in the management and dissemination of public information 

resources. The top ten challenges were: 

1. Hiring and retaining skilled professionals. 

2. Preventing unauthorized system intrusions (hackers, terrorists, etc.). 

3. Implementing electronic commerce solutions. 

4. Integrating or consolidating program/administrative information systems. 

5. Using IT to improve service to customers/stakeholders/citizens. 

6. Obtaining adequate funding. 

7. Implementing IT capital planning and investment management across the agency. 

8. Identifying specific CIO/IRM measures/outcomes under the Government Performance and Results 

Act and reporting on them. 

9. Formulating or implementing an agency IT architecture. 

10. Addressing and developing IT competencies (training and education).202

Notwithstanding this criticism, the CIO Council is to be commended for its recent efforts to coordinate 

federal activities more closely with the National Association of State Information Resource Executives 

(NASIRE). For example, in late September a roundtable discussion participated in by representatives 

of both groups took place, with state issues as the central focus. 

Moreover, the CIO Council is also coordinating its plans with the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) 

Council, and the Procurement Executives Council (PEC), both of which are commendable initiatives. 

However, the lion’s share of the central focus of the Council has been on IT-related major issues such 

as the very tight GPEA deadlines imposed on agencies, getting agency websites up and running, and 

the FirstGov effort, which has required considerable coordination. Attention to public information 

content matters, including dissemination initiatives, has been correspondingly minimal. There is no 

question but that the lightning speed with which the Internet has sprung onto the agency landscape has 

created many problems, but the Commission believes the CIO Council’s role is crucial to dealing with 

those problems. 

 

201 Ibid., pages 5-6. 

202 Association for Federal Information Resources Management, "The Federal Chief Information Officer: Fourth Annual Top 

Ten Challenges Survey," Washington, DC: AFFIRM, December 1999, page 2. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-129 

7. D. The Federal WebMasters Forum is off to a fast start 

Within the context of the CIO Council, the Federal WebMasters Forum is a commendable effort to 

coordinate the initiatives being taken by agency webmasters so that positive experiences can be 

interchanged, and negative experiences avoided. 

The challenges being faced by this group are many: 

• Should a print-on-paper or microform product be automated and placed on the agency’s websites? 

What are the factors that should be taken into account in making this decision? Which agency 

officials and offices need to be involved in this decision – in a coordination role, in a clearance 

role, in an approval role? 

• How should a pre-electronic product be optimally redesigned to maximize the capabilities of the 

web? 

• What format changes may be necessary, or at least be considered as an alternative, when migrating 

products from pre-electronic mediums to the web? 

• Is multimedia an option that should be considered? What about listservs? Bulletin boards? 

• What kind of education and training programs should be put in place to help agency personnel 

become more web-literate? Where can that training be obtained? 

• What kind of core competencies, skills, and experiences should personnel assigned to the agency 

Webmaster’s office have? Where can they obtain that training? 

• What controls are there in place to preclude the unnecessary proliferation of agency websites? 

• Should another agency or the private sector be considered as a host agency website?

• Are there preferred agency formats or mediums that could and should be considered as an agency 

standard—if not "de jure" (i.e., official), then at least a "de facto" standard? 

• Does the agency have a set of policies and guidelines to help program offices when they are 

considering developing new public information products for the web, as well as a "do’s and 

don’ts" list? 

7.E. The Federal Library and Information Center Committee facilitates communication among 

agency library and information center staff. 

The Federal Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC) facilitates communication among 

agency library and information center staff. Its mission is to foster excellence in federal library and 

information services through interagency cooperation and to provide guidance and direction for the 

Federal Library and Information Network (FEDLINK). FLICC provides programs and services to 

support the many federal libraries and information centers and provides a forum for development of 

policies and best practices, exchange of ideas, and mutual information exchange. 

FLICC was created in 1965. Its members include the Library of Congress, National Library of 

Medicine, National Library of Education, and National Agriculture Library as well as representatives 

of cabinet-level executive departments, legislative, judicial and independent federal agencies with 

major library programs. It is chaired by the chaired by the Librarian of Congress and housed within the 

Library of Congress. It is another example of successful voluntary cooperation among agencies. 

FLICC is increasingly working with the CIO Council and its committees and taskforces, including the 

very important FirstGov development effort. This is a very positive development. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-130 

7.F. The Federal Publishers Committee (FPC) and the Interagency Committee on Printing and 

Publications Services (ICPPS) continue to play an effective role as they make the transition to 

electronic modes of publishing 

The Federal Publishers Committee (FPC) and the Interagency Committee on Printing and Publications 

Services (ICPPS) continue to play important roles in providing a forum for education of their members 

and the exchange of ideas, concerns and "best practices," as well as the discussion of developing 

standards and guidelines and other "hot topics." The FPC and ICPPS provide collegial support and 

encourage cooperation among their members. The benefits of these interagency groups is substantial, 

and in the Commission's view, absolutely necessary. The soon to be published Guide to Federal 

Publishing203 is an excellent and timely example of a high quality product that can be produced in a 

reasonable timeframe by groups of this kind with the potential to benefit a large number of 

government employees involved in the production and dissemination of government information. This 

publication contains substantive advice to agency personnel on information life cycle management, 

with particular emphasis on the new issues that arise from the substantial increase in electronic 

publishing. 

8. FINDINGS RELATING TO STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT 

8.A. Distinctions between different levels of government are critical in finding public 

information resources. 

In its October 18th evaluation of FirstGov, the American Library Association noted that many users of 

public information portals and websites: 

... are not aware that the .gov domain may also be used by state or local governments. 

FirstGov is supposed to be primarily a federal government information resource. 

Links to state and local governments that come up in search results should, therefore, 

either be expressly identified as such to distinguish them, or be searched with a 

different form of search. 

The point here can be usefully generalized. Too often agencies assume when they design, develop, 

test, and eventually "go live" with information systems, portals, websites, and other information 

resources designed for the public, that important distinctions can and should be made between the 

federal level and the other levels of government when it comes to public information resources 

availability and accessibility conventions. In some cases it may make sense to make such systems and 

resources applicable to all governmental levels, but if that is the decision, the scope of the holdings to 

be made available should clearly indicate all levels of government. In other cases, however, only the 

federal level is applicable, and in still others only the state level, or only local level, or only the tribal 

level, and so forth. 

The liaison coordination the federal CIO Council has recently established with the National 

Association of State Information Resources Executives (NASIRE) is a very useful relationship that 

can and should be further exploited, but not just for IT-related matters, but I-related matters as well. 

 

203 U.S. Federal Publishers Committee, op. cit. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-131 

8.B. Public information resources management and dissemination problems experienced by one 

level of government are commonly experienced by all levels of government 

The problems of searching for, retrieving, and communicating government information to the public 

that are experienced by one level of government, such as the federal level, are more often than not 

being experienced by the other levels of government as well – State, local, and tribal. For example, the 

Missoula Montana Independent in its Nov. 24-Dec. 6, 1999 edition, under the caption "Hacking 

through country bureaucracy," documented the trials and tribulations of Hamilton County resident 

Darwin Ernst who, for more than three years, according to this article, "fought to gain access to data 

held inside Ravalli County computers without success." In a June 1998 letter from a county executive, 

Mr. Ernst was advised that "computerized data would only be available to the general public after the 

data set was 100 percent complete, the data had been verified for accuracy, a description of the data 

had been prepared, the data was provided in a uniform format, and the county was using the data for 

its intended purpose." The absence of copying equipment, Mr. Ernst was later informed, was the 

reason given by the country for not being able to supply the data earlier.204

It is for this reason – the commonality of problems being faced by all levels of government when 

dealing with the public vis-à-vis providing government information – that the Commission strongly 

urges the need for intensified intergovernmental coordination in the public information resources 

management area. 

In the words of the October 24, 2000 revised "Guidelines for Legal Deposit Legislation," available 

from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), "If we presume that 

local government is a basic unit of democracy, then the information produced by local government 

should be made available and be preserved, not just for local use, but for the nation as well."205

8.C. Beyond standardizing and harmonizing information finding tools the federal government 

needs to strengthen its intergovernmental information interchange coordination role so that 

expertise, experiences, anecdotal examples, research, and “best practices” are cross-fertilized. 

Beyond the questions above surrounding the importance of governmental level distinctions in finding 

tools for public information, the Commission found that the coordination between and among the 

different levels of government when it comes to interchanging and sharing government information is 

flawed and needs to be strengthened. Undoubtedly there is much expertise, experience, research, and 

anecdotal examples of success stories and other “best practices” of “this worked for me” that could be 

cross-fertilized among intergovernmental levels. 

The Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (OIA) in the Executive Office of the President is well 

positioned to facilitate and coordinate this activity in conjunction with the new Public Information 

Resources Administration. 

 

204 Thorning, Ruth, "Hacking Through County Bureaucracy," Missoula Independent, November 24 – December 2, 1999, 

page 6. 

205 Jules Larivière, Guidelines for Legal Deposit Legislation, The Hague: International Federation of Library Associations 

and Institutions, October 24, 2000; http://www.ifla.org/VII/s1/gnl/legaldep1.htm.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-132 

9. FINDINGS RELATING TO THE COMMERCIAL (FOR-PROFIT) SECTOR AND THE 

PROFESSIONS 

9.A. The private sector has a key role both acting independently and as a "partner/provider" 

with the public sector to add value and re-disseminates public information. 

The private sector plays an important role in providing government information to the public, as well 

as in enhancing the value of products and services, in online, print, and other mediums and formats. 

Libraries and businesses rely heavily on the private sector for packaged and repackaged information 

products and services. However, for that purpose, the private sector, like libraries and federal agencies, 

needs to acquire public information efficiently, quickly, and in usable and flexible formats and 

mediums, in order to supply value-added information to its customers. Private industry also can help 

government by sharing experience and expertise in electronic publishing, packaging, and related 

fields. 

The private sector role in adding value to public information to create new products and services 

fulfills the needs of those citizens who are willing and financially able to pay for these enhancements, 

and/or who wish to obtain access to public information from sources other than the government itself. 

Private sector organizations, both for-profit and non-profit, play an essential, complementary role in 

making optimum use of public information. They may repackage the information in value-added 

products, and provide value-added dissemination, in order to reach wider audiences including 

disabled, disadvantaged and special populations. By incorporating the information in supplemental 

catalogs and indexes, they expand use many times over. Moreover, the fact that the government sells 

raw (i.e., non value-added) products at incremental cost does not detract from the private sector 

opportunity to sell the value-added product at a substantially higher price if value is truly added. 

In some cases, through public-private sector joint partnerships, the private sector assists in the 

publication of information products that may otherwise not have been published. In the best models of 

such public-private sector partnership programs, the products are included in GPO'S cataloging 

services, and the publications are provided to the FDLP for some limited no-fee public access to 

complement the sales access. Moreover, the private sector plays an important role in the development 

of new technology and new systems for information publication, access and retrieval—functions that 

enhance government programs. It is very likely that when there is market demand, value-added 

private-sector public information products and services will be maintained for permanent public 

availability. Once the economic motive disappears, the future access to such products and services is 

less certain. 

There is a minimal dissemination responsibility that the government has, after which the private sector 

can repackage and add value and further distribute it to the public. In the online era of the 1980’s and 

early 1990’s, the government’s responsibilities included indexing and abstracting, but did not include 

online distribution. Pioneering companies like Lockheed Dialog and SDC added value and innovated. 

With today’s pervasive Internet presence, web distribution is considered as part of the government’s 

responsibility, and the private sector therefore must go beyond simple online access to add marketable 

value to re-disseminated public information. 

Finally, it should be remembered that information content, unlike many other resources and goods, is 

not homogenous and of equal value to all. It therefore must be target-marketed. The private sector is 

highly skilled at target marketing, and its expertise in this regard could be valuable to the federal 

government. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-133 

9.B. Business and industry utilization of public information is additional evidence of the return 

on the taxpayer’s investments in government information, especially R&D. 

Business and industry, not to mention universities and other elements of the private sector all need 

public information for all aspects of their operations. Their public information needs range from 

regulatory information to financial, economic, and demographic data, scientific and technical 

information, and weather. Making information easily accessible to business and industry can result in 

better decisions, better compliance with regulations, greater productivity, and improved balance of 

trade status. Efficient and widespread dissemination of information using the Internet is the key to 

connecting agencies collecting and storing information with the individuals and organizations that can 

use the information to solve problems and generate new knowledge. 

One very specific and tangible example of this is that R&D contractors who do business with the 

government often look upon the reports deposited with NTIS as a de facto archive of their 

information, rather than go to the expense of creating their own special archival collections that 

duplicate what they've deposited with the government. This is a substantial return on investment that 

would be eliminated if NTIS were to disappear. 

9.C. The private sector faces difficulties in keeping up with government rules and regulations 

relating to public information dissemination. 

Specialized government search and locator services run by private or non-profit sector entities have 

even greater difficulty than the government itself does in keeping up with new federal information 

sources provided online. Unlike the Government Printing Office or the Library of Congress, the 

private sector, including private sector libraries and educational institutions, enjoys no special 

relationship, nor has it been able to rely on legal or regulatory mandates, to assure that they are kept 

informed of new public information services. Two areas of user assistance in which the private sector 

tends to excel for those who purchase the services are in providing personal interfaces and in 

maintaining quality search and retrieval mechanisms. They have likewise been more effective in 

developing and providing summary source information, including special indexing and abstracting 

services. 

9.D. Joint ventures and private sector partnerships are often a preferred modality, rather than 

government trying to "go it alone". 

As the result of the National Technical Information Act of 1988, NTIS has unique statutory authority 

for joint ventures with private sector information vendors (15 U.S.C. 3704b(a)(1)(A)). NTIS will 

typically use this authority to find a private sector partner who is willing to underwrite the cost of 

producing an information product that an agency can no longer produce either because it lacks the 

funds for printing or the staff resources to develop it. It will then share the resulting revenue with the 

partner and provide copies to the depository libraries. A good example is the Commerce Department's 

own "U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook," the successor to the "U.S. Industrial Outlook" which had 

been produced for more than thirty years but had been discontinued. It was reintroduced in 1998 with 

a new focus on trade pursuant to a partnership between NTIS and the McGraw Hill Companies and 

published again in 1999 and 2000. 

In each publication, McGraw-Hill states below the copyright notice on the back of title page that 

portions of the publication prepared by U.S. government employees are not copyrighted, except that 

copyright is claimed on tables, graphs and charts unless the sole designated source is the U.S. 

government. Since these copyrighted tables and graphs may appear on pages that are otherwise in the 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-134 

public domain, some users complained that it was difficult to separate the information protected by 

copyright from that in the public domain. 

In addition to joint ventures, NTIS makes its own bibliographic database available to vendors who add 

value to it, redistribute it, and pay NTIS a portion of the revenue they derive from it. Although this 

royalty may not be appropriate under the new business model to be suggested by this report, the role 

of NTIS in providing a central gateway to public information for potential private sector vendors is a 

valuable role that would continue in the Internet age. 

9.E. Proactive dissemination of public information also means opportunities for the business 

sector 

Elsewhere in this report the Commission has stressed the importance of shifting from a passive to a 

much more proactive stance when federal agencies dissemination their information to the public. 

Implicitly this means, of course, that the commercial business sector, as a segment of the broader 

"public," will itself be in an excellent position to become aware of value-adding opportunities simply 

because it will be more keenly aware of the market value of public information. In this context, at 

least, the government is the information provider, and the commercial for-profit sector is the user, but 

the "uses" here mean the ability to identify enhanced business opportunities. The value of a proactive 

dissemination policy goes far beyond conventional means that the private sector traditionally uses for 

this purpose, such as the Federal Register and the Commerce Business Daily, because under a 

proactive policy the private sector itself becomes a targeted constituency. 

9.F. The roles of the traditional information professions in the Information Age are changing 

dramatically and need to be redefined appropriately by government occupational and job 

authorities, such as in the Department of Labor Dictionary of Occupational Titles and the Office 

of Personnel Management civil service occupational category and position classifications 

systems. 

The traditional information professionals such as librarians, records specialists, public affairs 

specialists, technical information specialists, and so forth, are transforming themselves in the 

workplace into knowledge professionals appropriate to the Internet Age. All of these traditional 

professions are becoming more diversified, their skill and competency requirements enriched, and 

their experience portfolios widened as a result of the demands placed upon them by their jobs. A 

librarian, for example, is become a “knowledge navigator,” a records specialist is becoming a 

“knowledge organizer,” an industrial engineer is becoming a “knowledge engineer,” and so forth. 

However, the traditional ways government classifies positions and duties in the various manpower and 

personnel systems it employs, such as the Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 

and the Office of Personnel Management’s system of classifying civil service positions, and the 

Department of State’s system of classifying foreign service positions, and the Department of Health 

and Human Service’s system of classifying health professional positions, and so on, are not keeping 

pace. As a result, careers in government are not as attractive as they are in private industry, are not 

paid as well, and opportunities for training and re-training, and professional development, are not as 

attractive. All of these things need to be corrected if the vision the Commission has for transforming 

government information into a strategic national asset can be realized. 

There is also a role here for the professional associations and societies with academic memberships 

since they are instrumental in redesigning and reforming curricula so that the nation’s schools begin to 

turn out the modern information professional with the appropriate competencies and skills. For 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-135 

example, in the library area, the Association of Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) is 

a key player in this regard. There are corresponding associations in the computer science area as well. 

9.G. The roles of the other professions need to take into account new interfaces and relationships 

with modern government information professionals. 

Within the government context, the medical, legal, engineering, architectural, and other professions 

employed by the government may wish to consider reconfiguring in some respects their roles to take 

into account the availability and pervasiveness of modern government information professionals to 

assist them in fulfilling their duties and responsibilities. 

10. FINDINGS RELATING TO THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT SECTOR, INCLUDING 

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, AS WELL AS ACADEMIC, RESEARCH AND 

RELATED INSTITUTIONS 

10.A. The not-for-profit sector is a user of public information and is quite diverse. 

The not-for-profit sector, like the other sectors, is quite diverse, and includes associations and 

societies, foundations, think tanks, consulting organizations, public interest groups, consumer groups, 

local community organizations, social clubs, and so on.206 These organizations play a major role in the 

redissemination of public information, including notification of their constituencies of the availability 

of relevant public information products and, in some cases, value-added republishing. Many public 

libraries and academic libraries, whether publicly or privately funded, organize collections of public 

information and have knowledgeable staff to assist their patrons with the location and use of public 

information, as do associations, foundations, and public interest groups. These organizations are 

important links between the government and users of public information. 

10.B. Role of not-for-profit sector is important in adding value to public information 

Like the for-profit sector, the not-for-profit sector also plays an important role in adding value to 

public information for all users, not just serving a current awareness role. More specifically and 

importantly, associations and societies, and public interest groups, repackage information for their 

respective members or special clienteles, making the information easier to use, and more applicable 

and relevant to their specific concerns. The results of the Commission's survey of disabled, 

disadvantaged and special populations attests to the importance of this role.207

10.C. Professional associations are increasingly moving to online modes of membership and 

constituency alerting services. 

As an example of how professional associations are increasingly responding to the information needs 

of their memberships and constituencies, the Medical Society Cooperative, a group of nine small 

medical associations, is banding together to offer free Web services to their combined 80,000 

members—a sign that doctors continue to move online. Each of the member associations is also 

 

206 For purposes of this report, academic and research institutions, many of which are not-for-profit, are included separately 

in this category. 

207 The survey results relating to special populations are summarized in Appendix 28 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen28.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-136 

contributing resources, including health-care content. The California Academy of Family Physicians 

just launched Web services and hopes to sign up 20% of its members over the next two years. Services 

will include Websites for doctors offering daily news updates, online continuing medical education, 

and the ability to create online forums to communicate with other physicians. Doctors also can 

customize practice Websites aimed at their patients, offering a secure e-mail option and educational 

materials. As more patients tap the Internet for health data, doctors are seeking ways to direct them to 

credible information.208

10.D. Library and information professional associations are well positioned to expand education, 

training, career advancement, and related professional opportunities workshops; funding should 

be provided in part through grants from the library services and technology act grants 

programs 

Elsewhere in this report the Commission has addressed the need to transform the Federal Depository 

Library Program (FDLP) from a largely paper-based collections model to a modern, Internet-based 

electronic model.209 One of the expanded functions contemplated for the revitalized FDLP would be as 

a trainer to other librarians, information managers, and other information professionals, user groups, 

and the public at large, for accessing government information. There is a critical need to expand 

significantly and extend the education and training of librarians who are not already in the FDLP 

because, in an Internet-based model, not just depository libraries, but public, academic, school, law, 

and special libraries, information centers, record and archive facilities, museums, and other 

repositories, will also require specialized public information access skills and knowledge. 

Many depository librarians already offer training and instruction to other librarians and user groups 

within their respective Congressional Districts and beyond. A central web list of FDLP reference and 

training partnership participants could be established and linked to by several central information 

services agencies as well as individual mission agencies. This web list could be organized by topic or 

expertise of the partnership participants and by geographic area. The FDLP reference and training 

partnership participants could list training expertise and preferred audience: business, K-12, special 

libraries, and so on, and preferred geographic area served. 

Speaking to this very issue, Carol Henderson and Frederick King wrote: 

Given public libraries' advantages as public training and assistance sites, and thus as 

creators of demand for Vice President Gore's vision of an information superhighway, 

the administration should consider devoting a modest amount of new funding to the 

program that already exists to stimulate use of new technology and to leverage other 

sources of funding. Even $20 million annually added to the LSCA210 funds devoted 

exclusively to Internet connectivity and training for public libraries would send a 

powerful message.211

 

208 Ann Carrns, Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2001, page B5, and Milt Freudenheim, "Digital Doctoring," New York Times,

January 8, 2001, page C1, as summarized in Communications-Related Headlines for January 8, 2001, a free daily online 

news service provided by the Benton Foundation; http://www.benton.org/News/

209 This issue is addressed in Conclusion 5. 

210 The Library Services and Construction Act, predecessor of the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). 

211 Carol C. Henderson and Frederick D. King, "The Role of Public Libraries in Providing Public Access to the Internet," 

Public Access to the Internet, edited by Brian Kahin and James Keller, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, pages 169-170. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-137 

10.E. Academic and research institutions place a high value on government information as a 

public good that offers a substantial return on the investment of tax dollars in research and 

development. 

The federal government funds a substantial portion of all scientific and technical research. This 

research helps the U.S. maintain its competitive edge in medicine, science, and technology. Failure to 

disseminate research results widely means that this valuable asset remains unused and unproductive. 

Inaccessible research results cannot be transformed into products and processes that contribute to 

economic growth and productivity. In spite of the efforts of the federal STI organizations, NTIS 

estimates that approximately 25% of reports that should be submitted to them under the American 

Technology Preeminence Act are not submitted, and are therefore not available for current and future 

use. While no precise numbers are available, the Government Printing Office also estimates that there 

are a significant number of "fugitive documents" that come under the statutory mandate for inclusion 

in its Catalog of U.S. Government Publications and the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), 

but are never provided to GPO for dissemination.212 

In addition, as noted by Dena Hutto in her review of recent literature on government information in the

Journal of Government Information: 

The electronic format, while eliminating physical barriers to access, may actually raise 

new intellectual barriers. Most of the documents on the 10 Most Wanted Government 

Documents213 list were already available via the Internet, but citizens were unaware of 

this fact because the documents were so difficult to find.214

 

Scientific and technological development does not just happen. Scientists and engineers rely on a wide 

body of previous and current work to provide the foundation for their work. In addition, they learn 

about new methodologies, successful and unsuccessful experiments and processes. Scientific and 

technological advances often take years. Chemists, physicists, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, 

and others depend on work done in the past. This work must be archived, made available for access, 

and be preserved, so that individuals and institutions can continue to learn from the past. J. Robert 

Oppenheimer in his book, Uncommon Sense, stated, "The history of science is rich in examples of the 

fruitfulness of bringing two sets of techniques, two sets of ideas developed in separate contexts for the 

pursuit of new truth, into touch with one another."215 

Today, some areas of science are becoming highly interdisciplinary. For example, the development of 

new building materials involves chemists, mechanical engineers, structural engineers, and materials 

scientists. Development of artificial limbs may involve mechanical engineers working with orthopedic 

surgeons and materials scientists. The central point here is that there is an increasing need for an 

interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary database, otherwise what is left is a "stovepipe" configuration 

wherein each agency, each discipline, and each sector must be separately searched in order to find 

materials that are relevant – a time-consuming and extremely inefficient practice. 

 

212 The need for a safety net is discussed in Findings 3.G and 6.I and is addressed in Recommendation 27. 

213 Center for Democracy and Technology and OMB Watch, 10 Most Wanted Government Documents, Washington, DC: 

Center for Democracy and Technology and OMB Watch, 1999; 

http://www.cdt.org/righttoknow/10mostwanted/aboutthe10.html.

214 Dena Holiman Hutto, "Challenges of the Electronic Age: Titles of Note in the Literature of Government Information," 

Recent Literature on Government Information, Journal of Government Information, Vol. 27, no. 2 (March/April 2000), page 

195. 

215 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Uncommon Sense, Boston: Birkhèauser Boston, 1984. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-138 

This is not just applicable to STI and R&D work. The same point concerning return on investment is 

equally applicable to government programs of all kinds, whether formally classified as R&D or not. 

For example, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Interior, and others are not always, 

or customarily, called "R&D agencies," although they may harbor an STI component, and yet these 

agencies manage enormously important programs where the dissemination of information to the public 

is extremely valuable. 

10.F. Partnerships between federal agencies and major research libraries are critical to 

preservation and access solutions. 

The major research libraries of the country are key elements of any system for preservation and access 

of public information. These libraries are actively working on the software and technology for the 

digital libraries of the future. The government supports this effort with research grants and contracts 

and benefits from the resulting knowledge.216 

Partnership arrangements that currently exist between the two sectors should be strengthened to 

squarely address the challenges of managing large collections of digital information. One 

commendable arrangement is the one entered into by the Government Printing Office, the Department 

of State, and the University of Illinois at Chicago for the selection, acquisition, preservation, and 

archiving of certain foreign affairs materials. Another example is the agreement between the 

University of North Texas and GPO to provide permanent online access to electronic publications of 

selected federal agencies that have ceased operation, such as the Advisory Commission on 

Intergovernmental Relations, the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of 

Appeals Research Collection, and the National Civil Aviation Review Commission Research 

Collection. 

10.G. Library and information science schools and programs, as well as those for computer 

science and MIS, have key roles to play in information and computer literacy education and 

training. 

Library and information science schools and programs, as well as those for computer science and MIS, 

have key roles to play in information and computer literacy. This report documents the critical 

importance of academia in helping to overcome the barriers to computer and information literacy that 

are widespread in the population. Public affairs and political science schools and programs can also 

collaborate with the information and technology oriented schools and programs to ensure that literacy 

training is placed in appropriate public policy contexts. 

10.H. Research into techniques such as the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Expert Systems (ES) 

techniques and methods developed during the 1980’s and early 1990’s can help address many 

public information resources management challenges 

Academic and research institutions have an important role to play in helping to address the many and 

complex problems faced in the public information resources management arena. For example, the 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Expert Systems (ES) techniques and methods that were developed 

during the 1980’s and early 1990’s, but never really fully tested and applied for a wide variety of 

reasons having very little to do with the quality, relevance and applicability of the methods to problem 

areas addressed in this report. The portfolio of AI and ES techniques and methods, as well as the more 

 

216 The White Paper on this topic is available as Appendix 20 in Volume 3 of this report and at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen20.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-139 

recent and emerging field sometimes called intelligent and knowledge-based systems, could be 

revisited in the light of public information resources management challenges. 

Another important area is in automatic indexing and abstracting. To a certain extent state-of-the-art 

research that is driving search engine technologies is being stymied by the failure of automatic 

indexing and abstracting research to keep pace. While many semi-automatic indexing and abstracting 

software packages are commendable, there is plenty of room for much-needed progress. 

Finally public affairs and political science departments in academia could well take the lead to propose 

a variety of "policy research demonstration projects," in such areas of user needs assessments for 

public information, digital libraries, preservation, information literacy, e-medicine, e-agriculture, ecommerce, and so forth. Such projects might be collaboratively designed and developed with the 

participation of library and information schools and programs, and computer science and MIS schools 

and programs, as well as cognitive psychology faculties. 

11. FINDINGS RELATING TO OTHER AREAS, INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL 

INFORMATION POLICY 

11.A. The United States is looked upon as a leader in the Internet Age and should share its 

findings and expertise to help other countries, especially those in the developing world, better 

exploit and utilize their government information holdings for the betterment of all of their 

citizens. 

The United States already participates in many international intergovernmental forums with other 

nation-states in arenas where various "specialized" information policy issues and concerns are debated 

and discussed. These include the United Nations and its many specialized agencies, as well as the 

International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the International Council of Scientific Unions 

(ICSU), and many others. However, there may not be an ideal, fully appropriate existing international 

inter-governmental forum in which the key concepts espoused by the Commission in this report—the 

idea of treating public sector information as a strategic national asset—can be aggressively advanced 

and discussed. 

Based on promising and late-breaking news, the U.S. is apparently close to a resolution of its dues 

structure for the United Nations and an agreement for the repayment of past dues. If the United States 

also chooses to rejoin UNESCO soon, that organization might well be the most appropriate forum for 

this purpose. As the Commission goes to press with this report, the Clinton Administration has left 

office reiterating the desirability of the U.S. rejoining UNESCO.217 However, if U.S. membership in 

UNESCO is appreciably delayed, then other international avenues need to be explored. The 

Commission is already committed to supporting the National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL), 

in close coordination with the U.S. Department of Education, in planning the first international 

congress for information literacy. UNESCO is a possible forum for that event even though the U.S. as 

of the date of this report has not yet rejoined the organization. 

 

217 U.S. Executive Office of the President, "Statement by the President," January 16, 2001; available at 

http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2001/1/1/17/13.text.1.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-140 

11.B. The exchange of information through bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements has enriched 

access to foreign information by U.S. Scientists and engineers. 

Bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements for the exchange of information enrich access to foreign 

information by U.S. Scientists and engineers. Two excellent examples of the benefits that accrue to 

U.S. science are: 

1. The International Nuclear Information System (INIS). Through this system the U.S. receives 

worldwide nuclear information in exchange for U.S. information. It includes English language 

abstracts and extensive indexing of foreign material for ease of access. 

2. The Energy Technology Data Center (ETDC). The International Energy Agency (IEA) operates 

the ETDC under a multi-lateral agreement. Through the ETDC energy information is exchanged 

with major allies and provided developing countries. This has been both a tool for international 

diplomacy and an asset that enhances the productivity of the U.S. science community,. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-141 

E. CONCLUSIONS 

After reflecting carefully on all of its findings, the Commission reached the following conclusions 

with respect to the significance, implications, and consequences of the findings. Conclusions 

consolidate the findings relating to each of the twelve corresponding categories.

1. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS (THE GENERAL PUBLIC) 

The federal government should continue with the development of prototype new portals, such as 

FirstGov, for the purpose of putting in place a "yellow pages" approach to help citizens know what 

government information exists that may help them, where it is available, how it is identified so they 

can search for and retrieve it, and how to utilize it effectively to meet their needs once retrieved. 

However, libraries and information professionals should play a greater role in these efforts. 

Lower levels of government should coordinate closely with the federal initiatives to ensure that the 

availability and accessibility of public information can be determined by level of government, as well 

as by subject matter, and to ensure the various finding tools from different levels of government level 

are complementary and consistent. Locator tools must be fine-grained enough to distinguish the full 

range in the level and quality of computer and information literacy among the many diverse segments 

of the public at large, from the very sophisticated at the one extreme, to the disadvantaged and 

severely disabled at the other. The public should come to regard government information as one of the 

first sources to consult, not a "court of last resort." User assistance methods, tools, and techniques 

should be tailored to the full range of diverse users—there is no "one size fits all" approach 

End user assistance often involves a librarian. A story reported on CNN on November 28th notes: 

"With seemingly infinite research data at the fingertips of everybody linked to the 

Internet, you might think reference librarians are doomed to go the route of door-todoor salesmen and elevator operators. Instead, many Internet users have found the 

information glut daunting and confusing. And frequently, it’s a reference librarian 

they turn to make sense of it."218

2. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO DISABLED, DISADVANTAGED AND SPECIAL 

POPULATIONS 

The federal government should monitor very carefully compliance with the Americans With 

Disabilities Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as well as other statutes with provisions to 

responding to the needs of the disadvantaged and disabled, to ensure that the goals and objectives of 

the legislation are implemented both in spirit, and "to the letter of the law." Disabled, disadvantaged 

and special populations all face formidable barriers to accessing public information that are not faced 

to the same degree by the general population. This is especially true for physically and emotionally 

handicapped and disabled individuals, but is also true for other special populations such as victims of 

discrimination for race, religion, culture, ethnicity, or gender, as well as senior citizens, school age 

children, the poor and rural populations. 

 

218 Larry Keller, "Not an Endangered Career: Looking It Up," posted November 28, 2000, at 6:08 p.m. on cnn.com; 

www.cnn.com/2000/CAREER/trends/11/28/librarians/index.html 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-142 

The government must be sensitive to these special needs and constantly strive to innovate in the 

application of state-of-the-art technologies and approaches to providing public information resources. 

While Section 8a(6)(f) of OMB Circular A-130219 requires that agencies take appropriate steps to 

ensure that members of the public with disabilities have reasonable access to information, the 

Commission believes much more remains to be done to meet to the needs of special populations. 

Professional societies and associations have stressed the importance of consumer feedback 

mechanisms from groups representing disadvantaged and disabled and special populations, especially, 

for all federal government IT development activities. Working with individual agencies, the 

government should ensure that new electronic public information products and services take into 

account the findings detailed elsewhere in this report and its appendices. 

3. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—GOVERNMENTWIDE PUBLIC INFORMATION POLICY AND STANDARDS LEADERSHIP AND 

OVERSIGHT

New and Strengthened Policy and Standards Leadership

The government should not undermine or close down central information service agencies that provide 

indispensable services to all mission agencies just because of the Internet or to save a few million 

dollars. The services these agencies need and use, and the policy leadership and oversight they require, 

cannot be accomplished nearly as efficiently or effectively by each agency individually, much less in a 

coordinated fashion across all agencies, to serve their own missions as well as the public at large. The 

challenge is to redesign, reconfigure, and consolidate government-wide public information services 

agencies and programs, policy leadership and oversight in five areas: 

• The agency or program area. 

• The statutory and regulatory area. 

• The policy guidance area. 

• The technical guidance area, including standards development. 

• The budget and finance area. 

Traditional information services and information management approaches, including public 

information dissemination machinery, must be harmonized and blended with electronic, web-based 

approaches so that both domains are "invisible" and are perceived by the public as part of the same 

whole fabric, not overlapping and competitive, or absolutely inconsistent and incompatible as is 

currently true in some cases. At the same time, the level and quality of central government-wide 

information service agencies, such as NTIS and GPO, must not be degraded until such reforms can be 

affected. 

This means: 

• Consolidating, simplifying, and streamlining the government-wide public information services 

organizations into a single, new Executive Branch agency, such as the proposed Public 

Information Resources Administration,220 and creating comparable organizations in both the 

Judicial and the Legislative branches. 

 

219 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of Federal Information Resources," OMB Circular A-130, op cit. 

220 This issue is addressed in Recommendation 2. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-143 

• Revisiting the mandates for using sales income to support the central services and, instead, 

providing appropriated funds for the limited central services (public good function221) that provide 

a true benefit to the public that would not otherwise be provided by uncoordinated individual 

agency web initiatives. 

• Upgrading and modernizing pre-Internet Age authorities, responsibilities, missions, and functions, 

with a new vision that is Web-based and predicated on the ultimate, inevitable shift of more and 

more public information products from pre-Internet to Internet availability. 

• Paying special attention to the information needs of the disabled, disadvantaged and other special 

populations. 

• Improving intergovernmental, inter-branch and interagency sharing of government information. 

• Making better use of public-private sector partnerships, without permitting copyright or copyrightlike restrictions on public information resources. 

• Renewing attention to the development of information standards and guidelines, as well as 

supporting research and development for software and technical solutions to facilitate government 

information life cycle management. 

• Strengthening government-wide detailed guidance on interagency information sharing. OMB 

Circular A-130 does not adequately address sharing government information between and among 

federal organizations. There is provision to guard against the creation of new information flows 

and systems where existing flows and systems could satisfy a need, and thereby to preclude the 

development of new, duplicative flows and systems. However, Circular A-130 addresses 

information sharing among government agencies primarily from the standpoint of paperwork 

reduction, urging agencies to look at satisfying new information needs through interagency or 

inter-governmental sharing. In fact, interagency use and sharing of government information is 

specifically excluded from the A-130 definition of the term dissemination. Sharing of information 

systems, not information content, is the focus of the current policy requirement, but sharing of 

content is even more important than avoidance of unnecessary overlap and duplication of systems. 

• Key public information resources management terms and concepts must be clearly and 

consistently stated in statutes and appropriate policies, including such terms as public information 

resources (replacing government publication and government document), permanent public 

availability, authentication, and preservation. Moreover, the first one of these, permanent public 

availability, needs to be carefully harmonized with the notion of permanent records retention as 

that term is used in the Federal Records Act. The interests of records managers and librarians 

intersect in defining the attributes that determine when public access to a record and/or records 

collection (series) is "required or appropriate," and therefore the skills of both professions working 

in a collaborative mode, are needed here. 

• The government information life cycle management concept222 needs to be strengthened, clarified 

and integrated in the forthcoming reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act in 2001, and the 

corresponding changes in the next revision of OMB Circular A-130 so as to link internal and 

external agency information management more closely together at each stage of the life cycle. The 

Commission concludes that the internal agency resource management problems and challenges 

and the external public information challenges are increasingly converging because of the Internet, 

and therefore their solutions must be more closely integrated. FLICC Executive Director Susan 

Tarr emphasized this convergence, saying, "Therefore, when an agency improves access to its 

 

221 These public good functions are identified in Conclusion 6 and Recommendation 11. 

222 A White Paper on government information life cycle management is in Appendix 16 in Volume 3 of this report and also 

at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen16.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-144 

information to the public, it improves the likelihood that federal personnel, in another agency or 

even within the same agency, will also be able to find whatever they need."223 The converse is also 

true. When an agency improves its internal information management, it is easier to identify and 

make appropriate information available to the public. 

• The time is overdue for the Congress to review the patchwork quilt of hundreds of laws currently 

in effect that relate to creation, management and dissemination of government information and to 

assess how the government's cumulative, overall public information resources program can be 

strengthened, especially in the Internet Age.224 Such a review should eliminate contradictory 

policies in operating information dissemination programs, as well as identifying unmet public 

information needs. 

Central Policy Leadership Does Not Mean Central Control

Whenever a new agency is proposed, inevitably the traditional alarm bells of "centralized control," 

"centralized approach," and "central data bank" ring loudly. The Commission understands the basis for 

this concern, but in this case rejects them for the following reasons. 

No one disagrees any longer that information is a resource which government needs to do its job, just 

like any institution, public or private, does. Every organization needs human resources, financial 

resources, physical resources, natural resources, and information resources. The four objectives of 

resource management (all resources) are to: 

• Maximize the value and benefits by utilizing the resource to achieve missions and end-purposes. 

• Minimize the cost of acquiring, storing, handling, and utilizing the resource. 

• Fix accountability in individuals for the effective and efficient use of the resource. 

• Ensure a reliable, continuous, and uninterrupted flow and supply of the resource, including the 

creation of a new source of supply for the resource if and when needed. 

The above four general objectives are as applicable to manpower as they are to dollars, to wildlife, to 

computers, to energy, or to data. They all require central policy leadership and guidance. The only 

thing that differs is the specific set of methods, techniques, tools, and guidelines that have been 

developed over the years for each area (each resource has its own unique and customized set of 

techniques and tools). 

In the federal government, since the birth of the Republic, there has been established: 

• An Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to provide central policy leadership focus, 

coordination, management, and oversight of the government’s manpower resources and labor 

pool. 

• A Treasury Department to provide central policy leadership focus, coordination, management, and 

oversight of the government’s financial resources. 

• A General Services Administration (GSA) to provide central policy leadership focus, 

coordination, management, and oversight over the government’s physical resources, including 

property, supplies, buildings. GSA also provides central policy leadership focus, coordination, 

management, and oversight of government procurement and travel regulations. 

 

223 Susan M. Tarr, "Board Talk," FLICC Newsletter, No. 194/195 (Summer/Fall 2000), page 2. 

224 The need for such an analysis is discussed in Findings 3.B and Recommendation 19. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-145 

• A Department of the Interior to provide central policy leadership focus, coordination, 

management, and oversight over the nation’s natural resources, including fish and wildlife, parks, 

wilderness, and so forth. 

The existence of these central policy leadership, coordination, management, planning, control and 

oversight offices has not eroded the authorities and responsibilities of the mission agencies to manage 

their own resources. For example, creating a policy leadership public information resources agency 

would in no way diminish the autonomy of individual agencies to pursue the most cost effective and 

efficient approaches to public information dissemination, suitable to their own distinct needs and 

circumstances. 

The existing, relatively tiny policy staffs in the Executive Office of the President are simply too small 

and too crisis-oriented to deal efficiently with the day-to-day complex challenges involved in the 

resource management areas. For example, the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has his hands full with the myriad 

issues of security, privacy, intellectual property rights, and so forth, to deal with public information 

resources management issues effectively. The Commission does not believe that OMB should have the 

day-to-day operating responsibility for issues and questions relating to public information resources. 

This same reasoning applies to the OMB Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), which is why 

GSA is needed, and to the responsibilities of the OMB Assistant Director for Budget, which is why the 

Treasury Department is needed, and so forth. 

Finally, the Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy said in its 1976 report: 

For years, a sense of mutual accommodation with respect to the sharing of 

information was lacking in the relationship between Congress and the Executive 

Branch. The atmosphere has often been combative and only sometimes cooperative. 

Arrangements governing information sharing have generally been flexible and not 

clearly defined. The information sharing pattern between Executive and Legislative 

Branch has been largely hit or miss in the past. With increases in systematic sharing 

between these two branches may come the necessity for formal guidelines to preserve 

the separation of powers.225

In sum, a central public information resource policy leadership, coordination, oversight, planning, 

management, and control agency is absolutely essential to the smooth functioning of any large 

institution, much less the largest and most complex institution in the world—the federal government. 

Financing Public Information Dissemination

Information dissemination is still not an integral part of agency information resources management 

(IRM) programs. The cost of disseminating information to the public should be considered as an 

integral cost of doing business. It should therefore be include as a line item in agency budgets. 

Establishing an Information Dissemination Budget (IDB) will help to eliminate the agency view that 

dissemination is an unfunded mandate and, consequently, increase dissemination of information to the 

public. While the Paperwork Reduction Act in several places uses the term "dissemination," neither in 

that Act nor elsewhere has Congress given the Executive Branch a single, standard set of statutory 

authorities regarding the responsibilities of all federal agencies for proactively disseminating public 

 

225 U.S. Domestic Council Committee on the Right of Privacy, National Information Policy: Report to the President of the 

United States [The Rockefeller Report], Washington, DC: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 1976, 

page 165. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-146 

information. These same observations were made twelve years ago by the OTA study "Informing the 

Nation," and, unfortunately, they are still as true today as they were then.226

Many statutes reviewed by the Commission as part of this study authorize, and even mandate, the 

dissemination of research results, best practices and model programs as an integral part of the 

program. Since government-funded research and development are incomplete without dissemination 

of the results, the Commission has concluded the Congress should reserve a fraction of one percent of 

all funds appropriated for research, development, demonstration and comparable government and 

government-funded activities to fund the dissemination of the results of such activities through 

mission agencies the proposed Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) and other 

information dissemination programs, and the preservation of materials. This would ensure that a 

reasonable amount of funds was allocated for identification, acquisition, cataloging and indexing, 

preservation, and dissemination of information for every $1 billion spent on research. There is, 

moreover, the danger that without such a reserve set-aside, agency dissemination budgetary line items 

would be much more vulnerable to reductions during tough budget years. The Commission believes 

this reserve is a modest investment that would maximize the proactive dissemination of the research 

results. 227

4. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—INDIVIDUAL 

AGENCIES WITH OPERATING MISSIONS 

Public Information Dissemination as an Integral Part of Every Agency Mission

There is a need for the inclusion of a standard provision in the enabling legislation for each agency 

incorporating public information dissemination as a primary agency responsibility, integral to its 

mission. This requirement must apply to all entities in all three branches of the federal government. 

There is a need for strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure agency compliance with statues 

governing participation in the FDLP and NTIS. In addition, strong incentive mechanisms, such as the 

Information Dissemination Budget line item, are needed so that agencies no longer regard information 

dissemination as simply another unfunded mandate. Both a carrot and a stick are required to 

accomplish the goal of making public information dissemination a primary agency responsibility. 

While on the one hand agencies are to be commended for seizing on opportunities to disseminate their 

information products more effectively to the public, or at least provide access to such information, on 

the other hand if they stray too far from explicit enabling and authorizing language in that direction, 

Congress often pulls them back. That is why the Commission strongly believes standard language 

must be included in agency organic and program legislation that makes disseminating information to 

the public an "above board," legal requirement that should ideally be financed through appropriated 

funds as a normal and integral part of the agency’s doing business. 

Individual agencies are always experimenting with employing creative and innovative ways to 

disseminate information to the public, and to interact with the public using state-of-the-art interactive 

and multi-media formats. Yet many of these experiences, and the lessons learned, are lost because 

there are so few effective arrangements for systematically capturing and recording these experiences 

 

226 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., page 256. 

227 In FY 2001, $85 billion is proposed for federal R&D funding. Reserving three one-hundredths of one percent of that 

R&D budget would provide approximately $25.5 million for public good functions necessary to ensure the dissemination of 

the research results. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-147 

and sharing them among the federal agencies, between branches, and even inter-governmentally. 

Smaller agencies, in particular, are disadvantaged in this respect, because they need such ideas the 

most, but yet they have the least effective capabilities to capture this kind of information. An expert 

advisory list, an e-mail newsletter and portfolio with interesting "What's Worked for Me" ideas, and/or 

tools that is available for the agencies to use, etc., could be very helpful. The CIO Council could pull 

together such a compilation of such tools. Some excellent work has already been done along these 

lines. A number of excellent model agency public information resources policy statements could be 

included in such a portfolio of best practices, such as "Policy on Public Access to EPA Information"228

which Chapter 21 of the Environmental Protection Agency IRM Policy Manual. 

Current Awareness Services

Librarians have established current awareness services, or as they are sometimes called Selective 

Dissemination of Information (SDI), for many decades as a tool to alert patrons selectively when the 

libraries acquire a new book, a back-ordered serial, an inter-library loan item, and so forth. This allows 

patrons to pre-select materials by creating a profile of their information needs and interests. "Standing 

Interest Profiles" are kept on file so that as new or requested materials are received, the materials are 

automatically transmitted to the individuals with matching profiles or the individuals are notified of 

the availability of the new materials. 

Federal agencies have a variety of electronic notification systems, such as those utilized for their press 

releases, to electronically notify the news media, constituents, beneficiaries, and other targeted 

clientele when they generate an important item of information. Instead of standing interest profiles, for 

press release purposes and regular publications purposes, however, various mailing lists are 

maintained depending on a variety of wants and needs factors (e.g., Group A wants materials only in 

category X, Group B wants materials only in category Y, etc.). 

In the Internet Age current awareness techniques and methods are more cost-effective and more 

effective than they were in the online era and in preceding pre-electronic eras. Therefore, individual 

agency initiatives could be studied and the particularly promising approaches that many agencies have 

developed distilled and transformed into guidelines from which all agencies might benefit.229 

Proliferation of Formats and Mediums

As has been noted elsewhere in this report, the current information technology environment is 

extremely volatile. New formats are being developed every week and every month. Not without cause, 

many are worried, for example, that the advent of XML will automatically cause the obsolescence of 

public information products available in other formats, especially PDF which is considered vulnerable 

because the scanned images of text cannot be manipulated. There is a strong feeling in federal 

agencies that periodically, at least once every three years, a survey should be undertaken similar to the 

one undertaken by Westat for NCLIS on the migration of pre-electronic to electronic formats and the 

migration from one electronic format to another.230 That survey would endeavor to pinpoint 

"preferred" formats for the full range of data types: 

• Bibliographic data. 

• Graphical data (photos, charts, graphs, drawings). 

 

228 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit. 

229 Recommendation 29 addresses the need for extending SDI services to the public. 

230 Recommendation 25 addresses the need for such a survey. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-148 

• Numerical data. 

• Sound. 

• Spatial data (maps, coordinate files). 

• Textual data (books, serials, reports). 

• Video. 

• Multimedia (sound, video, text, graphics). 

• Other formats. 

The major format types should also be surveyed to attempt to discern patterns of preference, including: 

• Database formats (Oracle, Sybase, dBase, WAIS, MARC). 

• Spreadsheet formats (Excel, Lotus 1-2-3). 

• Tagged Markup formats (HTML, XML, SGML). 

• Image formats (GIF, JPEG, TIFF, PDF). 

• Audio formats (WAV, AU, AIFF). 

• Video formats (MOV, MPEG, AVI). 

• Text format (ASCII, Rich Text, ANSI). 

• Word Processing format (WordPerfect, Microsoft Word). 

• Other formats. 

Online approaches would also be tracked. For example: 

• User Interfaces Supported (Netscape, Internet Explorer, Telnet, FTP, non-graphical/dial-up shell). 

• Web Design Approaches (Basic HTML only, Tables, Frames, CGI Scripts, use of Java script, Use 

of Java Applets, XML). 

• Bulletin Board Systems (Graphical interface/browser). 

How information products are searched, how they are retrieved, changes if any in the type of data 

included, changes if any in what particular timeframe (short, medium, long-term), the use of metadata 

records, and policies relating to permanent public availability and accessibility, permanent records 

retention, preservation, and authentication, would also be surveyed. 

Single, Central, Comprehensive and Authoritative Inventory and Database of Public 

Information Resources

Despite the fact that paragraph 9(a)5 of OMB Circular A-130 specifically requires that agencies 

"maintain an inventory of agencies' major information systems, holdings, and information 

dissemination products [emphasis added], as required by 44 U.S.C. 3511, this requirements has never 

been adequately enforced. Without a single, central, comprehensive and authoritative inventory of 

public information, it is virtually impossible to know systematically whether a given information 

resource: 

• Ever existed 

• Currently exists or not 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-149 

• Has been changed or not and, if so, when and in what respect(s) 

• Has been discontinued entirely, or perhaps, as occurs more commonly, the print version has been 

discontinued and replaced with an electronic version. 

Is it any wonder that the public views with alarm the tendency of some agencies to take down from 

their websites products that were put up only a few days or weeks before? This is why it is absolutely 

essential that a central information services agency, such as PIRA, design, develop, pilot test and 

implement a single, central, comprehensive and authoritative public information resources inventory 

and database.231

Commenting on an early draft of this report, James Jacobs, data services librarian at the University of 

California, San Diego, suggested that Section 3506(d)(1)(C) of the Paperwork Reduction Act could be 

amended to say "agency dissemination of public information in an efficient, effective, and economical 

manner, including deposit of publications with depository libraries through the Federal Depository 

Library Program (FDLP) or its successors." OMB Circular A-130 could be similarly strengthened. 

Moreover, despite the language in OMB Circular A-130 requiring agencies to utilize the Federal 

Register as the vehicle for notifying the public when they propose to initiate, modify, or terminate an 

information dissemination product, there is no standard, uniform process for doing so. Clarifying these 

rules should be a task of the newly proposed Public Information Resources Administration. 

Revitalized Role for Agency Public Affairs Officials

Finally, the Commission is disappointed that in most agencies, with the notable exceptions of the 

defense, foreign affairs, and intelligence communities, by and large agency public affairs officials do 

not normally involve themselves in "institutional matters relating to electronic information publishing 

and dissemination." Perhaps, in the paper era they did get involved, but few such officials with whom 

the Commission discussed this matter, indicated that they had "hands on responsibility" to work with 

agency webmasters, for example, in the development of agency electronic publishing guidelines. 

Perhaps it can be argued that such officials have their hands already full putting out the hour-to-hour 

fires related to the agency's complex relationships with the media, public speeches of their principal 

officers, legislative liaison with the Congress, and so on. 

However, a laissez-faire, hands-off attitude cannot but exacerbate the already difficult challenges 

facing agency chief information officers in the electronic publishing arena. In short, most agency 

public affairs offices are staffed with professionals whose expertise in dealing with the public on 

agency information products is unmatched anywhere else within the agency. Their expertise must be 

harnessed and mobilized in the service of public information dissemination. 

5. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—CENTRAL 

AGENCIES WITH GOVERNMENT-WIDE INFORMATION SERVICES AND 

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT MISSIONS (EXCEPT NTIS) 

There is an unnecessary and wasteful proliferation among agencies with government-wide information 

services and information management missions and functions, including databases and collections, 

portals and websites for access, and metadata locator and classification tools. This wasteful overlap 

 

231 This issue is also discussed in Finding 3.B and Recommendation 19. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-150 

and duplication should cease, and these missions and functions should be consolidated into a new 

Public Information Resources Administration. 

It seems quite apparent that the same problems that precipitated the proposal 

to close NTIS in the first place are not limited to NTIS, but are endemic to all 

agencies with public information dissemination missions and functions, both 

agencies with government-wide, central missions and those with operating 

missions. ... The statutorily authorized sales policies, the statutorily authorized 

revenue policies, and the statutorily authorized charging policies for all 

agencies should be reasonably consistent. 

Changing the Status Quo

Over the years, many prior groups that have studied public information dissemination have concluded 

that there are significant opportunities for improvement in both NTIS and GPO product line analyses, 

development, and marketing. In the words of the 1988 OTA study, "strengthened cooperation between 

NTIS and GPO would not only help identify mutually advantageous joint activities, but would seem 

almost mandatory to the extent that both agencies pursue sales of electronic format products and that 

GPO enters the low-demand market."232

After carefully considering the option of trying to patch together and build on the current missions, 

functions, and programs of the existing central federal public information institutions, including GPO, 

NTIS and NARA, among others, the Commission believes the wisest course of action is to create a 

new institutional framework for public information resources. This would consolidate the first two 

institutions with programs from other agencies, add new functions not currently addressed by any of 

the current organizations, and place a streamlined, integrated institution, fully appropriate for the 

Internet Age, alongside NARA and the Library of Congress. 

Maintaining the status quo for the current public information dissemination structures is both unwise 

and inadequate, as well as not responsive to the charge that the Commission received from the Senate 

Committees. The only viable means for eliminating wasteful overlap and duplication among 

information dissemination missions, functions and programs is to consolidate these activities into a 

new Public Information Resources Administration. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that 

public information dissemination in the Internet Age can be much more effectively and efficiently 

managed as an executive rather than a legislative function. 

It is too late for incremental changes. A new public information dissemination law, a new independent 

public information resources management agency, and a reinvigorated government-wide public 

information resources policy leadership and coordinated are all required, not simply applying bubble 

gum and bailing wire to structures that have all but fallen apart completely. 

Federal Depository Library Program

With respect to the Government Printing Office (GPO) and the Federal Depository Library Program 

(FDLP), a new vision and a new service model are needed. 

 

232U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., page 107. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-151 

Regional depository libraries provide a safety net of last resort for no-fee permanent access to public 

information that they receive through the FDLP, but NTIS reports are not generally distributed to 

depository libraries and, in any event, to the extent that depository libraries acquire NTIS reports 

outside of the FDLP, they are not required to maintain them permanently. Whatever the problems with 

permanent accessibility may have been in pre-Internet days—and there were many—they have been 

compounded with the extensive federal agency uses of the Internet to publish information. 

What is needed is a new vision, and a new Internet Age business model to 

replace the traditional depository library program, and one in which the role of 

the government documents librarian is more fully expanded, extended, and 

exploited to help citizens diagnose their information problems and help them 

learn how to use the information they have found more effectively in applying 

that information to help them cope with their personal, family, job-related, and 

other challenges. 

The full realization of this vision of the transition from a fully or partially tangible product program to 

a virtual program where the great bulk of public information products are in electronic form is still a 

very long way off. Congress should not take the growth of the Web and the increasing amount of 

government content available on the Web as a signal to cut appropriations to the Federal Depository 

Library Program. For many years yet to come, substantial numbers of important government 

documents will not be available on the Web. In addition, many citizens will not have ready access to 

the Web, and thereby be able to quickly, easily, and reliably find and retrieve documents that are 

available. 

What is needed is a new vision, and a new Internet Age business model to replace the traditional 

depository library program, and one in which the role of the government documents librarian is more 

fully expanded and exploited to help citizens diagnose their information problems and help them learn 

how to use the information they have found more effectively in applying that information to help them 

cope with their personal, family, job-related, and other challenges. Repositioning and restructuring the 

FDLP in response to the Internet Age does not necessarily mean starting all over from ground zero. On 

the contrary, as noted earlier, the Commission found aspects of the program's traditional mission and 

practices that are not conditioned on changing information policy and technology. However, other 

aspects of the mission and practices need to be restructured and otherwise updated in light of changing 

policies and technologies. GPO and the federal depository libraries have been working on this 

transition since the first CD-ROM titles came into the program in 1990. A formal transition plan was 

developed in 1996 in conjunction with a report to the Congress entitled Study to Identify Measures 

Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program233

and that effort has accelerated each year. This statement is not intended as a criticism of what has 

already been accomplished, but rather in recognition that there is much more to be done. 

The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) is well positioned to expand its collections and 

services from so-called tangible information products to digital publications distributed over the 

Internet directly to the depository libraries. Most depository libraries have adapted rapidly to the 

changes in the program and their services to the public have kept pace with the expanded volume of 

digital materials. The current FDLP should immediately include such items for selection by depository 

libraries and ensure their delivery to the libraries prefer affirmative dissemination to access. The 

 

233 U.S. Government Printing Office, Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic 

Federal Depository Library Program; Report to the Congress (GPO Publication 500.11), Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office, 1996; http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-152 

proposed Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) should have as its foundation the 

active dissemination of digital publications to widely distributed, locally based and maintained digital 

library collections of federal depository libraries in exchange for their continued commitment to no-fee 

public access to the materials received or accessed. 

Nevertheless, the Commission also recognizes that one of the inevitable consequences of moving to a 

fully electronic public information dissemination model is that every library, in essence, becomes ipso 

facto a depository library. 

In a digital age of instant access over the Internet, there are still good reasons for establishing and 

maintaining the dissemination of electronic public information to depository libraries, even while the 

federal government provides services for the same materials. Among these are: 

• It provides a diversified and redundant infrastructure for preservation and access, outside the 

federal government, that will protect access and preservation against future changes in policy, 

mission and funding of federal agencies. 

• It results in multiple, specialized collections in the depository library community. Each library, by 

addressing the needs of its own community (whether or not that is a geographically local 

community, as it has been historically been, or a virtual community of users with common 

interests) will be able to select, organize, preserve and provide access to that information that is 

most important to its community. This will provide better access than a government-centered 

collection that contains only public information, by providing many different user-centered 

collections and presentations of public information. In addition, libraries can continue to integrate 

and provide their collections of federal public information along with other types of government 

information (foreign, state, local, tribal, etc.), private sector publications and value-added 

products. Decisions about the value of particular publications and about the preservation of free 

access to those publications can then reside with the local communities of interest, regardless of 

decisions made at the federal level. 

• It can be implemented immediately without additional legislation or funding and can provide a 

foundation on which the changes that the Commission recommends can be built. The FDLP exists 

today and has no-fee public access to federal public information as its primary mission. In the 

event that the proposed legislation to establish a Public Information Resources Administration 

(PIRA) is not passed quickly, or is significantly altered or inadequately funded, the dissemination 

of digital publications to depository libraries would provide much more assurance of permanent 

public availability than exists today. 

• It fulfills the requirement of Section 3506(d)(1)(A) of the of the Paperwork Reduction Act that 

agencies shall "(1) ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to the agency's public 

information, including ensuring such access through (A) encouraging a diversity of public and 

private sources for information based on government public information." 

Slowly, but inexorably, the case-by-case marketing decisions that were formerly made by the GPO to 

select agency documents for the GPO sales program are, in effect, being replaced by aggressive 

agency practices to mount as many of their public information resources as practicable on their 

websites. That is highly commendable, but that transition, alone, does not negate the need for strong 

policy leadership focus and oversight to guard against fugitive materials, the continuing need for paper 

products in certain cases such as the needs of the disabled and the disadvantaged, obsolescing 

mediums and formats, and other potential dysfunctional consequences of moving to the Internet as the 

preferred dissemination medium. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-153 

6. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT—THE NATIONAL 

TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS) 

Preliminary Assessment of the Future of NTIS (March 2000)

In its March 2000 report dealing with NTIS,234 the Commission indicated that more time was needed 

to investigate carefully the pros and cons, and the benefits and costs of alternative solutions to the 

"NTIS matter." Eleven different alternatives were then considered, including: 

• Retaining NTIS in the Department of Commerce. 

• Transferring collections and service responsibilities to the Library of Congress as initially 

proposed by Commerce. 

• Transferring collections and service responsibilities to the Government Printing Office. 

• Transferring collections and service responsibilities to the National Archives and Records 

Administration. 

• Establishing a new national library of science, engineering, and technology, sometimes also 

designated as the national library of science, energy, and technology. 

• Transferring some or all of the NTIS collections and services to the National Academy of 

Sciences, the National Science Foundation, or the Smithsonian Institution. 

• Creating a new independent agency as a service bureau to consolidate public information 

management functions now dispersed. 

• Privatizing some NTIS activities. 

• Establishing NTIS as quasi-governmental corporation. 

• Transferring NTIS collections and services to a "lead host scientific and technical information 

intensive agency such as NASA, DOE, or DOD. 

• Transferring NTIS collections and services to the General Services Administration. 

Since the Commission's initial investigations, a number of other closely related Congressional 

proposals have been initiated to study similar alternatives, not for NTIS, but for the transfer of the 

Superintendent of Documents functions in the Government Printing Office to the Library of Congress. 

During the FY 2001 budget hearings, the Appropriations Committees' Conference conferees directed 

the General Accounting Office (GAO) to study such a transfer and report to it March 30, 2001. 

Moreover, Congressmen Moran and Davis, and Congresswoman Morella, directed GAO to study 

NTIS operations in greater depth. Both of these studies are still underway as the Commission goes to 

press with this report. It is hoped that the GAO will take the Commission's findings and 

recommendations into account in these related current endeavors. And, reciprocally, should the 

Congress take up the Commission’s proposed legislation creating a new independent agency, the 

findings and recommendations of the aforementioned GAO studies, which specifically will include an 

assessment of the feasibility of transferring the depository library program to the Library of Congress, 

should be very helpful to the Congress in crafting final provisions and language for the Commission’s 

proposed bill. 

It seems quite apparent that the basic problems that precipitated the NTIS problems in the first place 

are not limited to NTIS, but are endemic to all agencies with public information dissemination 

 

234 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), op. cit. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-154 

missions and functions, agencies with government-wide, central missions and those with operating 

missions. Moreover, many of the findings the Commission identifies in the preceding section relating 

to NTIS also apply to the GPO since the missions and functions of the two central information service 

agencies, as well as the problems being faced, have close similarities. 

Only one of the eleven alternatives ... holds out real hope for dealing with the 

root cause of the problem instead of continuing to deal piecemeal with the 

effects, and that is to create a new independent agency in the Executive Branch 

as a service bureau to consolidate government-wide public information 

resources management missions, functions, and programs now highly 

fragmented, dispersed, compartmentalized, and unfocused. Not only would the 

new independent agency have overall policy leadership responsibility over the 

government's public information resources dissemination programs, but it 

would also be the federal government's staunch advocate for explaining, 

advancing, and diffusing government knowledge holdings as a strategic 

national asset. 

In short, the Commission faults the rationale that would lead to a "solution" of the problems by one 

such agency (e.g., NTIS), when, in fact, a different solution is left in place for another agency (e.g., 

GPO, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Weather Service (NWS), the Census Bureau, and 

so on). The statutorily authorized sales policies, the statutorily authorized revenue policies, and the 

statutorily authorized charging policies for all agencies should be reasonably consistent, albeit taking 

into account some exceptions. 

Only one of the eleven alternatives listed above, in the Commission's view, holds out real promise for 

dealing with the root cause of the problem instead of dealing with the effect, and that is to create a new 

independent agency in the Executive Branch as a service bureau to consolidate government-wide 

public information resources management missions, functions, and programs. Not only would the new 

independent agency have overall policy leadership responsibility over the government's public 

information resources dissemination programs, but it would also be the federal government's staunch 

advocate for explaining, advancing, and diffusing government knowledge holdings as a strategic 

national asset.235

For the reasons identified by the Commission throughout this report, maintaining the status quo, while 

not formally listed as one of the eleven alternatives, is, in the Commission's view, simply 

unthinkable.236 Such an option was not even discussed or recommended by any of the hundreds of 

participants the Commission involved in the two earlier stages of its investigations that lead to the 

current effort. 

The NTIS Mission

The government should not abandon the need for a central R&D policy and oversight agency in the 

Executive Branch because of past difficulties. It cannot be a surprise that the combination of events 

described in the Findings section above— lower report input, competition with free agency websites, 

loss of appropriated funds, aggressive entrepreneurial zeal with perhaps inappropriate business 

 

235 Recognition of public information as a strategic national asset does not imply exploitation of that asset to generate 

revenue for the government, like the sale of lumber or mineral rights on federal land. On the contrary, it must result in 

optimizing timely and permanent public access to the information for its owners, the people of the United States. 

236 This issue is discussed in Finding 5.C. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-155 

arrangements -– led to financial and other difficulties for NTIS. However, it does not follow that the 

government should therefore abandon the notion of a central source for government technical 

information charged with making this information accessible to the Public. 

The NTIS mission in the Internet age should have four primary components: 

• The collection and processing of government scientific, technical, and engineering information so 

that it can be made accessible to the public, including facilitating access by linking to the 

information on government websites. 

• The sale of this STIE information to the public in print, microfiche and tangible electronic form, 

such as CD-ROM or data tapes. 

• Related statutorily authorized services to other government agencies on a cost reimbursable basis. 

• Value-added information services provided by NTIS itself or by NTIS in conjunction with private 

sector information vendors, so long as the underlying information content remains available for 

free public excess. 

The last point is potentially the most controversial because it is here that the potential lies for conflict 

and competition with the private sector. Value-added services would seem to be appropriate when the 

service is directly related to the dissemination of information, or a natural outgrowth of, activities that 

NTIS would normally perform in furtherance of its own mission, such as disseminating an agency's 

database or delivering specific information products to an agency's customers. In the 1988 OTA 

"Informing the Nation" study, the notion of multiple levels of value-added was recommended, with the 

private sector frequently providing additional levels of value or enhancement beyond those provided 

by the government. The only difference today would appear to be that both the government and the 

private sector offerings have moved (as predicted in the OTA report) to a higher level of technological 

sophistication.237

The NTIS Business Model

The "new" business model for NTIS recommended by the Commission is a return to the earlier model 

with a mix of appropriated funds for input processing, sales income from report and publication and 

subscription sales and reimbursable funds for services provided to other agencies. 

Some of the functions performed by NTIS benefit the people of the United States and government 

agencies as a whole. These are the functions that make the results of government funded research and 

other NTIS publications accessible to the public. They include the functions of processing information 

into the NTIS collection and maintaining a searchable archive of public information for public access. 

These functions, which benefit the public at large and permit public access to public information, are 

properly supported with public funds, i.e., appropriations. 

When the Department of Defense (DOD) processes a research report of Defense funded research into 

its system and mounts it on its Web server for Defense community and public access all of the costs 

are taxpayer funded. The Department of Transportation recently received a $250,000 appropriation 

expressly for the purpose of mounting Transportation Department reports on a Web server for public 

access.238 Even the Department of Commerce, when it mounted its two policy reports mentioned in its 

"Fact Sheet" referred to in the earlier section of this paper, used taxpayer funds to pay for the 

 

237 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., page 270. 

238 DOT Gives Users Free Ride to Online Research", Government Computer News, April 3, 2000, page 13, at 

http://www.gcn.com/vol19no7/news/1630-1.html.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-156 

preparation, processing, mounting and public availability of the reports. Why should providing public 

access to reports at DOD, Transportation and Commerce be a taxpayer-funded public good while 

providing the same access to the same reports via NTIS require user charges? At present, unlike GPO, 

Library of Congress, DOD, Transportation or Commerce, NTIS is required to fund these same public 

good operations from sales receipts. When prices are high, there is enough money to fund the entire 

operation. When sales turn down, however, the reverse is true. The consequence of this approach to 

funding is the inevitable development of shortsighted recommendations to close down the money 

losing operation, when the real problem is not with shifts in consumer buying habits or swings in the 

economy, but with the business model itself. 

The government has the responsibility to insure that the public has adequate access to the government 

reports and publications collected by NTIS from originating agencies. This responsibility cannot be 

met by shifting it to mission agencies that do not have public information distribution or economic 

growth missions. Nor can it be met—and the funding saved—by transferring the responsibility to 

other central information repositories, which would require essentially the same level of funding to 

perform the same tasks. The government's continuing responsibility to provide public access to 

government information carries with it a responsibility to adequately fund dissemination operations. 

That is why the Commission formally advocates an Information Dissemination Budget (IDB) as part 

of the President's budget.239

This is not to say that specific users should not pay the incremental cost of specific access not 

normally provided and that incurs extraordinary costs. They should, but in today's Internet world, 

normally free access is likely to mean Web access, which can be provided by the government at 

negligible incremental cost for each additional user. 

The Public Good Functions

The specific operations that benefit the general public and, therefore, should be treated as inherently 

government functions and funded with appropriated funds are: 

• Collection or acquisition of reports. 

• The indexing, abstracting, cataloging, and preservation of these reports. 

• The further processing of reports into the NTIS collection by scanning, microfiching and 

archiving. 

• The creation and maintenance of the NTIS database which provides searching and locating 

information for this report collection, including the maintenance of a PURL or comparable system 

to maintain accessibility to reports on agency websites. 

• The mounting and maintaining of the searchable NTIS database on a website for free public 

access. 

• The mounting of the full text of the reports—to the extent they are not available on agency 

servers—on NTIS servers for free public access. 

• The maintenance of archive files to insure permanent, but not necessarily free, public access to 

material not otherwise available. 

 

239 The information dissemination budget is in Recommendation 4. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-157 

These functions would cost an estimated $5 million per year in ongoing operating costs and would 

permit NTIS to operate effectively independently of the vagaries of future report input or demand.240

There will also be some one-time startup costs to establish the new system. These costs are on the 

order of $1.7 million. NTIS estimates for performing these tasks are shown in Appendix B to the Panel 

One report.241 Note that periodic updating and replacement of IT hardware, possibly every five years, 

is not included in the recurring cost estimate in Appendix B. 

The same public good costs would be incurred and the same level of appropriated funds would be 

required to support these functions if the functions of NTIS were transferred to the Library of 

Congress as proposed by the Department of Commerce, or to the Superintendent of Documents in the 

Government Printing Office, to NARA, or anywhere else. The Commission made this point in its 

September 2000 letter to the Secretary of Commerce, strongly suggesting that permanent full time 

position (FTE) hiring authority be reinstated in order to bring the agency up to a satisfactory staffing 

and service level, and avoid the danger of the agency falling below that satisfactory level. 

User Fee Activities

In contrast to the inherently governmental responsibilities that the Commission recommends be paid 

for with appropriated funds, there are functions of NTIS that should remain self-funding. Such 

activities include the sale of print or microfiche copies of reports and of tangible electronic products 

such as CD-ROM titles and data tapes, in response to individual orders or through subscription 

services. These NTIS services incur specific, measurable, costs for each additional user and provide 

benefit only the specific individuals who use the services. These activities should be paid for directly 

by the user who benefits through a fee that recovers the incremental cost of the product or service 

distributed. 

Moreover, the work performed by NTIS for other agencies would also be reimbursed on the basis of 

costs actually incurred and should be directly related to its primary mission. 

If the changes contemplated in this report are accepted by the President and the Congress, then even if 

NTIS document sales income continues to fall dramatically as more and more content is made 

available for free access on the Web, it should be relatively simple to manage the operation without 

the kinds of deficiency problems faced in the past. Document sales income would only be used to pay 

the actual costs of document distribution and not the cost of processing documents or maintaining the 

PURL system, so costs of sales can be managed without degradation of the primary mission of 

providing permanent public access to a comprehensive collection of federal STI. Without those 

pressures of generating sufficient revenue to fund the public good functions, the financial instability 

would be reduced, and some of the excessive entrepreneurial zeal that led to aggressive competition 

with the GPO and questionable partnerships might also be reduced. This would temporarily stabilize 

NTIS and provide ongoing public access to government information in its collection. However, the 

Commission believes that the only viable solution to the "NTIS problem" lies in its merger with the 

Superintendent of Documents programs from GPO into the Public Information Resources 

Administration. 

 

240 This estimate for the required annual appropriation was provided by NTIS as part of the Commission's earlier study. The 

specific purposes for which it is to be utilized, along with the exact amount required, must be verified before final numbers 

are presented to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

241 The report from Commission Panel One is available as Appendix 23 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen23.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-158 

7. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTERAGENCY GROUPS 

(E.G., CIO COUNCIL, FEDERAL WEBMASTERS FORUM, CENDI, FLICC AND OTHERS) 

More often than not, the most knowledgeable official for a particular public 

information product may not even be in one of the central agency staff offices, 

but, rather, in a subordinate operating sub-unit in a program area, at the 

bureau, division, branch, or even lower level, but the arrangements for 

identifying, harnessing and mobilizing all of this expertise are too often 

deficient. The situation cries out for closer agency coordination and control. 

Oftentimes there is not even an "IRM committee" that is agency-wide, to advise 

the Chief Information Officer (CIO). 

It is evident that while responsibility for public information dissemination is nominally vested in 

agency chief information officers pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1995, 

and the Stevenson-Wydler Act, responsibility is, in fact, decentralized and splintered among a wide 

variety of agency central staff and operating program sub-unit offices within individual agencies. For 

example, the following central agency staff offices are all intimately involved in one way or another, 

at some stage in public information dissemination: 

• Public affairs office. 

• Printing and publishing activities. 

• Information technology staffs. 

• Libraries, information centers, clearinghouses and referral offices. 

• Webmasters. 

• Records management and archives staffs. 

• Statistical and reporting staffs. 

• Legislative liaison offices. 

• FOIA and Privacy Act staffs, including reading room staff. 

Moreover, more often than not, the most knowledgeable official for a particular public information 

product may not even be in one of the central agency staff offices, but, rather, in a subordinate 

operating sub-unit in an program area, at the bureau, division, branch, or even lower level, but the 

arrangements for identifying, harnessing and mobilizing all of this expertise are too often deficient. 

The situation cries out for closer agency coordination and control. Oftentimes there is not even an 

"IRM committee" that is agency-wide, to advise the Chief Information Officer (CIO). 

The CIO position in agencies was only established a few years ago with the passage of Information 

Technology Management Reform Act (Public Law 104-106), also know as the Clinger-Cohen Act, in 

1996.242 Although the statue assigns the CIO responsibility for information content, i.e., "promoting 

the effective and efficient design and operation of all major information resources management 

processes," as well as information technology, the emphasis in almost every agency has been 

overwhelmingly on technology. Clearly the intense efforts to prepare agency computer systems for 

Preparations for the year 2000 (Y2K) drew both attention and resources away from content issues. 

 

242 Excerpts from the Information Technology Management Reform Act, Public Law 104-106 (40 USC 1425), February 10, 

1996, are available at http://www.cio.gov/docs/s1124_en.htm.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-159 

This, coupled with the newness of the CIO position itself and the incumbent officials, compounds the 

problem of coordination and control because these individuals are so new to their jobs. 

CENDI, FLICC, FGDC and similar interagency groups continue to perform extremely valuable 

functions and should be continued. The recently revised Guidelines for Federal Publishing243

developed by the FPC and ICPPS is an excellent example of the substantial contributions that such 

interagency groups can make. 

8. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LEVELS OF 

GOVERNMENT 

Distinctions can and should be made in public information resources regarding the scope and 

applicability of holdings as to whether they are all government, federal only, state only, tribal only, or 

some permutation of these categories. FirstGov is an example of the critical need to make these 

governmental level distinctions. 

The proliferation of information at the federal level is, to a considerable extent, masking the need for 

indigenous information generated by the lower levels of government, and integrating that information 

efficiently and effectively with federal information. After all, it is at the local level that decisions are 

made affecting people’s lives, but no one fully understands to what extent these needs are filled by the 

kinds of federal information being generated and disseminated. The evidence is that considerable local 

level public information is being produced, but it is not being effectively meshed with federal data. For 

example, according to Professor Marta Dosa, it is common knowledge that much locally produced 

environmental data and information is passed along informal channels among planners, legislators, 

consultants, the administrators of service agencies, and the research sector. Yet, she asks, what is 

meant by "local environmental information," and should it not be correlated more closely with national 

environmental information?244 

Dosa reminds us that it is essential to know the structures and role of resources such as: 

• Local sources of data useful in the construction of environmental indicators. 

• Operational data assembled by planning agencies, utility companies, consulting firms, etc. 

• Publications and in-house documents of environmental agencies. 

• Local collections of draft and final environmental impact statements. 

• Current unclassified research related to environmental problems. 

• Local and regional development plans, site data, maps, etc.

• Alerting systems for environmental action groups on public hearings and controversial issues.245

Several American Indian tribes have made extensive use of the Serial Set microfiche collections 

provided by government document libraries, such as the Oklahoma Department of Libraries, because 

legal and genealogical research is increasing significantly. As the tribes improve their computer and 

information literacy, the demand for electronic public information is likely to increase. 

 

243 U.S. Federal Publishers Committee, op. cit. 

244 Marta Dosa "Environmental Information Policy: Search For Identity," paper presented at the Special Libraries 

Association’s 66th Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois, June 10, 1975, pp. 14-15. 

245 Ibid. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-160 

For these reasons, the Commission places so much emphasis on the need for closer intergovernmental 

information interchange, coordination, standards development, and research.

9. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE COMMERCIAL (FOR-PROFIT) SECTOR

The American public's access to government information needs has traditionally been best served 

through multiple, non-exclusive program and delivery channels provided by both the public and the 

private sectors so as to reach the widest possible public audiences, and meet the most diverse and 

specialized kinds of information needs. Neither sector can meet fully the totality of all public user 

needs for government information, nor should they even if they could. Sometimes the public sector 

can best handle a job, sometimes the private sector, and sometimes the two sectors acting together can 

accomplish more than either one acting separately. 

Moreover, users who are clienteles of a given agency (or perhaps even a few different agencies 

because of overlapping subject matter) develop a certain kinship and affiliation for "their" agencies. 

That is fine and natural, and is as it should be, but it is another reason why diverse and multiple 

channels are essential to a democracy. 

While the federal government must continue to have primary responsibility for the entire life cycle of 

government information, including the dissemination and permanent public availability to public 

information resources to the American public without restrictions on its use or reuse, it should also 

actively encourage a vigorous private sector information industry. It should avoid policies and 

practices that create exclusive arrangements or copyright-like restrictions on government information 

in order to promote wide availability of government information. Commenting on this issue in its 

analysis of key provisions of OMB Circular A-130, OMB noted: 

If an agency is willing to provide public access to a database, the agency should be 

willing to sell copies of the database itself. 

By the same reasoning, agencies should behave in an even-handed manner in handling 

information dissemination products. If an agency is willing to sell a database or 

database services to some members of the public, the agency should sell the same 

products under similar terms to other members of the public, unless prohibited by 

statute. When an agency decides it has public policy reasons for offering different 

terms of sale to different groups in the public, the agency should provide a clear 

statement of the policy and its basis. 

Agencies should not attempt to exert control over the secondary uses of their 

information dissemination products. In particular, agencies should not establish 

exclusive, restricted, or other distribution arrangements which interfere with timely 

and equitable availability of information dissemination products, and should not 

charge fees or royalties for the resale or redissemination of government information. 

These principles follow from the fact that the law prohibits the Federal Government 

from exercising copyright. 246

 

Typically the private sector develops and utilizes innovative hardware and software before the 

government. That expertise should be sought out by the government and applied by the government to 

every stage of the information life cycle. 

 

246 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key 

Sections," OMB Circular A-130, op. cit. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-161 

The opportunities for value-added publishing by the private sector, alone or in partnership with the 

government, will expand greatly in the Internet Age. While the private sector cannot and should not 

try to enjoin the government from using new information technologies to improve public service, 

especially in activities that are inherently governmental, neither should the government try to enjoin 

the private sector for exercising its initiative to developed value-added information products and 

services. 

As Donald Keith says in his recent article in Government Executive: 

As globalization is internationalizing American policy, devolution is localizing it. ... 

From Medicare to Medicaid, environmental planning to transportation policy, the 

federal government shares responsibility with state and local governments and with 

for-profit and nonprofit organizations. ... At every level of American government, 

such partnerships are proliferating. They have made government more horizontal, 

across an array of non-governmental partners that must be integrated and coordinated 

to provide services, and vertical, across more levels of government for more 

programs.

247

If the NTIS mission were to disappear, those corporations that have come to regard their information 

deposited with NTIS as a de facto archive, would have to go to considerable expense to establish and 

maintain their own individual archives and could no longer retrieve information deposited with NTIS 

over a number of years. 

10. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT SECTOR, INCLUDING 

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS 

Education, Training and Curriculum Reform

Understanding how to use information will ultimately become a far greater and more complex 

challenge that knowing how to search for and access it. That challenge is implicit in the concept of 

information literacy. 

Education and training, including career and professional development, for librarians and other 

information professionals does not require new funding mechanisms. Existing mechanisms, such as 

the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), can be given new funding to meet new goals. 

The LSTA program is an excellent financing mechanism, already in place and operating well, to 

encourage libraries to develop model education and training programs for public information 

resources. Such programs could provide librarians and other information professionals with the skills 

and expertise needed to help the public to locate and use public information. Another appropriate 

strategy is for the FDLP, or its successor, to increase the emphasis on training government documents 

librarians who in turn train and support other library and information professionals and users. 

Academia and professional societies composed of academic memberships should address the curricula 

reforms necessary to bring the education and training of modern information professionals into line 

with actual duties and responsibilities being performed by these professionals. 

 

247 Donald F. Ketti, "What's Next: The World and the Country Are Changing, and the Federal Government Had Better Figure 

Out How to Catch Up," Government Executive, Vol. 33, no. 1 (January 2001), page 25. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-162 

Government occupational and position classification authorities need to take into account the 

dramatically changing character of the modern information professions so that the government’s labor 

force appropriately reflects those changes in terms of pay, status, training opportunities, career 

development opportunities, professional development opportunities, occupational standards, position 

descriptions, and actual duties and responsibilities. 

The Commission will work with the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS), and other 

appropriate governmental and non-governmental bodies (e.g., the library and information schools, 

professional societies, and commercial education and training associations) to identify and encourage 

education and training opportunities and financing mechanisms. 

Public/Not-For-Profit Partnerships

The sort of arrangement entered into by the GPO, the State Department, and the University of Illinois 

at Chicago with respect to the latter institution providing various services to the public and the 

government with respect to foreign affairs materials, should be emulated more broadly across mission 

agency lines to other sectors, including, for example, the environment, energy, space, defense, and 

others. 

New Information Policy Research

Professor Marta Dosa of Syracuse University, writing succinctly in 1986 in the area of the usability of 

environmental information by research institutions and public policy makers, pointed out that the 

proliferation of computerized data banks underscores the need for coordinated federal information 

policies more than ever because of the increasing problems in seven areas. 

• Validity of data and information (what methodology was used, on what assumptions was the 

research based?). 

• Credibility of data (who collected the data, under whose sponsorship and for what specific 

purpose?). 

• Ownership of information (intellectual property laws, issues of creativity, productivity and 

innovation, proprietary information, trade secret legislation, definitions of public domain, 

subsidized information, market forces in information production and distribution, etc.). 

• Free flow of information, privacy and security (public and private sector relationships, freedom of 

information and sunshine laws, privacy legislation, computer security, scientific information 

exchange, transborder data flow). 

• Equity in information access (interpretation of information "free" of charge and "barrier-free" 

access, society’s responsibility for making information available on an equitable basis, and who 

are the information poor, role of consumer and environmental organizations). 

• Technology transfer (dissemination of environmental research results to policy makers and 

practitioners, relationships of technology, information and knowledge transfer, problems of access 

to technology assessment, risk assessment and social impact assessment, intercultural and trade 

issues in international technology transfer). 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-163 

• Information overload (is access to information sources or the availability of too much information 

the greater problem? Who should organize and evaluate data and information resources? What is 

the role of information education?).248

New Information Science and Technology Research

Academic and research institutions should look carefully at Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Expert 

Systems (ES), as well as the more recent and emerging field sometimes called intelligent and 

knowledge-based systems. Research institutions should pursue research in these fields, along with 

automatic indexing and abstracting, more aggressively, first at the laboratory bench, then in pilot test 

modalities, and finally in practical applications. 

Achieving the vision of a learning (or knowledge) society requires a much deeper understanding of 

how people learn. This is an enormous research challenge and opportunity. Although it is outside the 

scope of this report, the Commission strongly believes that the government should encourage and 

support such research since it is inextricably linked to the improvement of information literacy and, 

therefore, the economic development of this country. 

11. CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO OTHER AREAS, INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL 

INFORMATION POLICY 

If the United States rejoins UNESCO that forum should be explored as a suitable venue for the U.S. to 

pro-actively assist other countries, especially developing countries, learn how to organize, 

disseminate, and more generally exploit the notion of regarding public sector information as a strategic 

national resource. Meanwhile, the Commission, in collaboration with the Department of Education, 

and other stakeholders, is working with the National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL) to prepare 

for the first international congress on information literacy. 

Of course, there are other international forums through which the U.S. can pursue these objectives as 

well, including the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), the International Standards 

Organizations (ISO), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 

Public information has long been recognized as a tool in international diplomacy. There is a role of 

information to be used in development and capacity building with developing countries, especially in 

the areas of science and technology. For example, the U.S. is promoting establishment of a Biosafety 

Clearinghouse as part of a biosafety protocol to help developing countries obtain the data necessary to 

deal with biosafety issues. 

In the Commission’s view, some countries are ahead of the United States in establishing truly 

innovative Internet-assisted public information search and retrieval systems. One such country, 

Singapore, has developed its “Tiara” system with the assistance of the Gartner Group, a U.S. 

consulting firm. Readers may wish to browse www.tiara.com.sg for a preview of some very creative 

approaches to this challenge. 

 

248 Marta Dosa, "Information for Environmental Decision Making," Environment 2000: Environmental Information and 

Public Perceptions, Proceedings of a Conference held in Albany, New York, 1986, Albany: NY: New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation, 1987, pp. 88-89. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-164 

F. RECOMMENDATIONS 

Public information should be formally recognized by the United States as a strategic national resource. 

Recognition of public information as a strategic national resource does not imply exploitation of that 

asset to generate revenue for the government, like the sale of lumber or mineral rights on federal land. 

On the contrary, it must result in diffusion of that knowledge by optimizing timely and permanent 

public availability of the information for its owners, the people of the United States. 

To provide the necessary statutory foundation and other arrangements necessary to achieve the goals 

and objectives of this new national mission for management of public information resources, the 

Commission has sixteen strategic recommendations and additional important, but not absolutely 

critical, recommendations. All strategic recommendations should be acted upon and, ideally, 

accomplished in the short-term (within two years). Some recommendations can be implemented 

whether or not the proposed legislation is enacted or the new agency is created. However, the 

Commission recommends that both courses of action proceed expeditiously, so as to create an optimal 

national framework and climate for improving public access to government information. 

As requested by the Congress, these are the recommendations of the Commission itself.249 Although 

comments were requested and received through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this 

report does not represent an official position of the current, or former, Administration. In addition, 

although a wide variety of stakeholders were encouraged to participate in the development of this 

report and their comments were extremely useful to the Commission, these recommendations do not 

necessarily represent a consensus of stakeholders. 

STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. The United States Government should formally recognize and affirm the concept that public 

information is a strategic national resource. The President should issue an Executive Order 

or Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies emphasizing the 

importance of agency proactive initiatives in making their information resources more 

effectively and efficiently available to, and permanently accessible by, all Americans, 

including those who are disabled or disadvantaged. The President and the Congress should 

ensure that this concept is reflected in appropriate statutory, oversight, policy, budgetary, 

and other contexts. 

[Supporting Findings: 1.A, 1.D, 1.G, 1.I, 1.J, 2.B, 3.A, 3.B, 3.D, 4.A, 4.C, 4.O, 5.I, and 10.E] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]250

The United States Government should formally recognize and affirm the concept that public 

information is a strategic national resource. To accomplish this, the President should issue an 

Executive Order or a Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies formally 

designating the government's knowledge holdings as a strategic national asset and emphasizing the 

 

249 This aspect of the report is discussed in more depth in Section A, the role of NCLIS. 

250 For each recommendation, the suggested time frame is noted. The three-timeframes are: (1) the short-term: begin within 

two years or less, (2) the medium-term: begin in two to five years, and (3) the long-term: begin in six years or later. This is

discussed in greater detail in the section entitled Timeframes for Address Recommendations at the end of Section C. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-165 

importance of agency proactive initiatives in making their information resources more effectively and 

efficiently available to, and permanently accessible by all Americans, including those who are disabled 

or disadvantaged. The Commission would be pleased to assist in the drafting of such an instrument. 

Both the President and the Congress should ensure that the concept that public information is a 

strategic national resource is reflected in appropriate statutory, policy, budgetary, oversight and other 

contexts. 

The Commission has determined that there is an absence of a leadership and accountability statutory 

and organizational focus for the coordination, management and oversight of public information 

resources as a strategic national asset. 

2. The Congress should authorize and fund, and the President should establish, a new 

independent lead agency in the Executive Branch, the Public Information Resources 

Administration (PIRA), to plan for and implement the treatment public information 

resources as a strategic national asset. This requires some new authorities, functions, 

programs and responsibilities, as well as the transfer of existing authorities, functions, 

programs and responsibilities from other government entities. 

[Supporting Findings: 1.F, 1.G, 1.L, 3.A, 3.B, 3.C, 3.H, 4.B, 4.C, 5.A, 5.B, 5.C, 5.D, 5.E, 5.I, 

5.J, 8.B, 9.C, and 10.C] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term] 

The Congress should authorize and fund, and the President should establish, a new independent 

agency in the Executive Branch, the Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) to serve as 

the lead agency for overall policy and standards leadership, to plan for and implement the treatment 

public information resources as a strategic national asset and to provide overall policy leadership, 

management, oversight, coordination, and accountability for public information resources. The 

President should announce the creation of the new agency, stressing the importance the Administration 

places on making agency information holdings more easily available to and accessible by the public 

on a permanent basis. For this purpose the President may use an Executive Order or other appropriate 

instrument. 

All subsequent recommendations in this report assume that, once it is 

established, the Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) should 

either assume the lead or participate in implementing the recommendation. 

Following enactment of the proposed legislation,251 the Congress and the President should take the 

necessary steps to establish a new independent lead agency in the Executive Branch, the Public 

Information Resources Administration (PIRA). The absence of a clear, single, central focal lead 

agency within the government with responsibility for overall policy leadership, planning and program 

management, and oversight, is very serious. It is exacerbating technical problems in efficient crossplatform handling of public information, and it is reflected in the lack of effective information 

interchange policies, standards and guidelines; poorly enforced laws and regulations; and minimal 

 

251 The Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001 is available in Appendix 11 in Volume 2 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen11.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-166 

intergovernmental, inter-branch, and interagency sharing of government information resources. Other 

wasteful and dysfunctional practices include: 

• Unnecessary and wasteful overlap and duplication of government-wide information services and 

information management missions, roles, and functions that are now fragmented, dispersed, 

compartmentalized and unfocused all over government. 

• The loss of public information resources because there is no single, authoritative "failsafe" 

electronic repository for public information that agencies post on their websites and then later 

remove.

252

• Inadequate attention to the special public information needs of disadvantaged and disabled 

Americans. 

• The difficulty of inter-branch, intergovernmental, and interagency sharing of government 

information, and the lack of a federal information infrastructure that can be linked effectively to 

state, local, and tribal government public information infrastructures. 

• A serious lack of coordination in public information storage, communication and handling 

policies, programs, standards, guidelines and practices that is hampering information preservation 

and storage, communication and interchange between the government and public users, as well as 

the efficient and effective interchange of public information between platforms, systems, and 

networks because of inadequate locator and other metadata tools and controls. 

The PIRA will consolidate the missions, functions and programs of NTIS, the Superintendent of 

Documents, FirstGov and other portals for citizen access to government information and services, as 

well as other related activities. The new agency will consolidate, streamline, and simplify currently 

diverse, fragmented, compartmentalized, and unfocused public information management authorities 

and functions into a coordinated, focused, and cohesive system of public information dissemination 

management. The new public information resources agency will reduce the unnecessary overlap and 

duplication in existing authorities and functions, but still allows public information creation to remain 

on a decentralized basis (in each agency), and public information storage and handling to remain in a 

fully dispersed information handling configuration (multiple agency websites, servers, and networks, 

all linked together). The underlying rationale for this recommendation dealing with the federal public 

information resources area follows well-established organizational consolidation precedents and lead 

agency authorities that have long ago been vested in the other major federal resources areas—

manpower, dollars, supplies and equipment, and the Nation’s wilderness, forests, and wildlife: 

• The federal personnel resources area (i.e., the Office of Personnel Management). 

• The federal financial resources area (i.e., the Department of the Treasury). 

• The federal real and personal property resources area (i.e., the General Services Administration). 

• The federal natural resources area (i.e., the Department of the Interior). 

The existence of these central policy leadership, coordination, management, and oversight offices has 

not eroded the authorities and responsibilities of the mission agencies to manage their own resources. 

For example, creating a policy leadership public information resources agency would in no way 

diminish the autonomy of individual agencies to pursue the most cost effective and efficient 

 

252 The major research and development agencies, such as the Departments of Defense and Energy and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have centralized information programs, but even these programs do not 

capture all public information resources relevant to their missions. The FDLP and NTIS have central information collection 

missions, but both acknowledge that there are a significant number of "fugitive documents" that should be provided to them 

under their governing statutes, but are never received, and therefore included in their collections for permanent public access. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-167 

approaches to public information dissemination, suitable to their own distinct needs and 

circumstances.253

All subsequent recommendations in this report assume that, once it is established, the Public 

Information Resources Administration (PIRA) should either assume the lead or participate in 

implementing the recommendation. 

3. The Congress and the President should direct the inclusion of a standard provision in the 

enabling legislation for each agency incorporating public information dissemination as a 

primary agency responsibility integral to its mission. This requirement must apply to all 

entities in all three branches of the federal government. The Congress should ensure through 

its oversight responsibilities that the revised mission statements, once promulgated, are 

appropriately reflected in agency plans, budgets, programs, and performance. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.C, 3.E, 3.F, 4.B, and 4.K] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term] 

The Congress and the President direct the inclusion of a standard provision in the enabling legislation 

for each agency incorporating public information dissemination as a primary agency responsibility, 

integral to its mission. This requirement must apply to all entities in all three branches of the federal 

government. 

For convenience and simplicity, such standard language could be prescribed in technical amendments 

to the existing major cornerstones of public information availability listed here, and thereby 

simultaneously made legally applicable and binding to all individual agency enabling statutes, in all 

three branches of government: 

1. The Freedom of Information Act, including the Electronic Freedom of Information Act. 

2. The Administrative Procedure Act. 

3. The Government in the Sunshine Act 

4. The Paperwork Reduction Act. 

5. The Privacy Act. 

Simultaneously, these laws should be amended to harmonize and strengthen other provisions related to 

the creation, management and dissemination of public information resources. 254 Such amendments 

must make it explicit that the default position of the government should be to make all of its 

information resources available to the public, to other agencies, and to other levels of government, 

subject only to statutory non-disclosure provisions. While the Commission is reluctant to specify 

precise language for a standard clause, the provision in 7 U.S.C. 2201 that directs the Department of 

Agriculture to "...diffuse among the people of the United States, useful information on subjects 

connected with Agriculture..." reflects the spirit of the Commission's recommendation. 

 

253 There is additional discussion of this issue in Conclusion 4. 

254 As requested of Senator Lieberman, the Commission has developed specific recommendations for amendments to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, which are included in Appendix 12 in Volume 2 of this report. It is available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen12.pdf. The Commission would be pleased to develop comparable 

recommendations with respect to amendment of the other statutes mentioned here. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-168 

When inserting this provision, the Congress should make clear that the cost of disseminating 

information to the public is considered an essential, integral and direct cost of an agency's doing 

business, not an overhead cost. Furthermore, agencies should not view public information 

dissemination expenses as an unfunded mandate. This requirement should be reflected in such 

contexts as procurement and contracting regulations, the annual budget process as prescribed by OMB 

Circular A-11, performance reviews required by the Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA), and in other contexts. Too often disseminating information to the public is viewed as a byproduct of other, more important agency business, or subsumed in agency overhead calculations, and 

yet, disseminating government information to the public should be considered an essential and integral 

cost of the agency's doing business. 

There are instances where the sale of public information is appropriate, as with the current GPO Sales 

Program. However, such sales could never result in an adequate level of revenues to finance the public 

good functions that are the underling information infrastructure for such a program.255

The Commission acknowledges that the major research and statistical agencies and the central 

information service agencies, such as GPO, NTIS and NARA, as well as the Library of Congress and 

the national libraries, already have public information dissemination authorities and responsibilities 

explicitly identified in their enabling legislation. Yet these agencies are the exception, and the public 

information responsibilities under their enabling statutes are quite varied and inconsistent. For the 

most part, however, the mission agencies do not have such wording in their organic laws, much less 

consistent government-wide wording. The public information dissemination language utilized in the 

mission statements of the research, statistical and central information service agencies should be 

harmonized with the standard language suggested in this report fore the mission agencies. 

The Internet provides an unparalleled opportunity to adjust traditional incentives and disincentives 

with respect to motivating agencies to maximize rather than minimize their information flows to the 

public, as well as interagency, inter-branch and intergovernmental information sharing. Agencies are 

now able to reach out to all citizens in a far more effective manner because of the Internet, and they 

are, therefore, motivated to do so. Not only are the incentives to provide information to the public 

enhanced, the disincentives to withhold information are reduced by the ease and cost-effectiveness of 

publishing on the Internet. To the extent that individual agencies are successful in disseminating their 

own information directly, some burdens on, and costs to, central information service agencies are 

correspondingly reduced, but others are increased. However, in a battle for resources within a mission 

agency, broad public access will usually loose to the service demands of the agency's primary 

constituents. A central, consistent and authoritative inventory and database is still absolutely essential 

to provide easy and efficient "one stop" public access, comprehensive cataloging and indexing, 

permanent public availability, and as a safeguard to protect against catastrophic loss, budget cuts, and 

other loss of public information. 

4. The President should require an Information Dissemination Budget (IDB) line item at the 

individual agency level and establish an overall Information Dissemination Budget line item 

in the President's Budget that aggregates individual agency requirements with those of the 

new Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA). To help finance this budget, the 

Congress should enact legislation that automatically reserves a fraction of one percent of all 

funds appropriated for direct government research, development and demonstration and 

comparable government-funded R&D contracts, grants and activities. This reserve would be 

a minimal reduction of the funds available for R&D, but it would ensure that a satisfactory 

 

255 These public good functions are identified in Conclusion 6 and Recommendation 11. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-169 

portion for every $1 billion expended on the research was available for identification, 

acquisition, cataloging, indexing, preservation, and dissemination of research and 

development results, in addition to funds already provided by direct appropriations.256 

[Supporting Findings: 3.E and 3.F] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term] 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1995, the government employs an 

"Information Collection Budget" budgetary line item as a disincentive mechanism to help keep control 

of otherwise burgeoning agency collections of information from the public, businesses, lower levels of 

government, and so forth. The Commission believes it only fair and equitable, on the other hand, that 

the President should require an "Information Dissemination Budget" (IDB) budgetary line item as an 

incentive mechanism, in order to ensure that individual agency efforts, and the overall government 

effort, to maximize the dissemination of information to the public, are clearly identified, statutorily 

enabled, and satisfactorily funded. Currently many agencies regard public information dissemination 

expenses as an unfunded mandate. This approach would also ameliorate mission agency fears that the 

Congress may cut their regular budgets because they have strayed too far from utilizing regular 

appropriations for public information dissemination purposes that some may argue are not directly and 

explicitly related to their primary mission and program authorizations. To this end, two levels of IDBs 

are required, one at the individual agency level, and the other an overall IDB in the President's Budget 

that aggregates individual agency information dissemination requirements with those of the new 

Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) to arrive at government-wide total. 

To help fund this budgetary line item, the Congress should enact legislation that automatically 

reserves a fraction of one percent of all funds appropriated for research, development, and comparable 

government and government-funded activities, to fund the Information Collection Budget, including 

the relevant public good functions currently performed by the National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS) and the Government Printing Office (GPO). This reserve would be a miniscule reduction of 

the funds available for R&D, but it would ensure that a satisfactory amount was available for 

identification, acquisition, cataloging, indexing, preservation, and dissemination of information 

reporting research and development results for every $1 billion expended on the research itself. The 

reserve would make available at least a modest sum to finance direct agency public information 

dissemination programs as well as the relevant public good functions currently performed by the major 

central information service agencies such as the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and 

the Government Printing Office (GPO).257 

The federal government cannot afford to erode the level and quality of public information services 

provided to the nation's academic, research, related institutions, and the professions. The science 

laboratories, the classrooms and lecture halls, and the workbenches of individual entrepreneurial 

 

256 The specific amount to be earmarked for this Reserve Fund will be determined by the President and the Congress in the 

context of normal executive budgetary and legislative processes. However, the Commission believes that the amount should 

be a fraction of 1 percent of the R&D budget. 

257 For example, the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) all identify, collect, abstract, index and either scan or microfilm reports for 

their own agency missions that are eligible for public information dissemination. They then transfer the abstracting and 

indexing records, and in some cases, copies of the documents themselves, to NTIS for public availability, which right now 

means sale. If this effort was not performed by DTIC, DOE and NASA, it would have to be performed by NTIS in order to 

make these materials available to the public; therefore, the public good functions of collecting, abstracting, indexing, and 

scanning or microfilming of these public information resources, in so far as they are related to the results of federally funded 

R&D, could and should be funded through the reserve. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-170 

inventors working in their garages or basements across the country are, in a very real sense, the R&D 

front lines of America's highly touted distinctive economic competency in the world. The government 

cannot risk reducing the level of public information services to these individuals and institutions on 

the firing line because of bureaucratic quarreling over the financing of a miniscule fraction of the total 

annual R&D budget. 

Once established, the Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) will estimate its own 

budgetary requirements, and assist OMB in the review of other Executive Branch agencies IDBs. The 

Congressional Information Resources Office (CIRO) and Judicial Information Resources Office will 

review their respective branch IDBs. All of those requirements will be included in the overall IDB. 

The portion of PIRA requirements not funded by the reserve from the R&D budgets, or through its 

statutorily authorized information sales programs, will still require direct appropriations. Until PIRA is 

created, funding for the relevant public good functions of the National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS) and the portions of the Superintendent of Documents' expenses that are related to the 

identification, acquisition, cataloging and organization, as well as the dissemination of the results of 

federally funded R&D through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), should be financed 

through the funds reserved from the R&D appropriations. However, this will not eliminate the 

requirements for appropriated funds to support and sustain the FDLP and other channels for 

dissemination of public information not generated through federally funded R&D. 

There is also the need to recognize that both new and existing budgetary authorities must be involved 

in these calculations. In the case of the major statistical agencies, for example, and some major central 

information service agencies such as GPO and NTIS, and the national libraries, substantial budgetary 

authorities for public information dissemination are already authorized. In short, there must not be any 

"double counting" between existing budgetary authority amounts already appropriated to the mission 

agencies on the one hand and the new budgetary authorities appropriated to a central information 

service agency, such as PIRA, on the other. Where an agency already has explicit statutory authority 

enabling it to disseminate its information to the public, the Commission recommends that budgetary 

authority remain in place and continue. Those existing budget authority amounts, most assuredly, 

should not be considered as "budgetary trade-offs or offsets" against the PIRA budget. 

Implementing this recommendation to establish an Information Dissemination Budget line item will 

help to eliminate the agency view that dissemination is an unfunded mandate and provide a strong 

incentive to increase dissemination of information to the public. 

5. The President and the Congress should review and, as necessary, refine and modify the 

legislative proposal of the Commission, "The Public Information Resources Reform Act of 

2001." The Congress should enact, and the President should approve, the legislation in the 

107th Congress. 

[Supporting Findings: 1.A, 1.B, 1.G, 1.I, 2.B, 3.A, 3.I, 4.A, 5.F and 10.E] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term] 

The Commission has proposed legislation, the Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001,258

to provide a new statutory foundation for the formal establishment of government's knowledge 

holdings as a strategic national asset. The proposal is an expanded outline of key provisions, but is 

 

258 The proposed Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001 is available in Appendix 11 in Volume 2 of this report 

and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen11.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-171 

not a complete bill. It is not written, for the most part, in a traditional draft legislation style or format. 

Instead, the different sections contain the most important points and topics the Commission believes 

should be covered when a Member of Congress drafts a complete and appropriately formatted bill for 

introduction. It is fully recognized that both the new President and the new Congress will need to 

examine the detailed provisions of the proposal very carefully, consider hearings on this issue, and 

make whatever modifications they believe necessary. The Commission's intent in preparing the 

proposal was to facilitate this process and provide a catalyst for discussion and action. 

Such a bill could be introduced early in the First Session of the 107th Congress. Because this is 

proposal for government-wide reform, it affects the jurisdiction of virtually every committee of 

Congress. One possibility is for the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House 

Committee on Government Reform to take the lead in reviewing the proposal, modifying it as 

necessary, and eventually sponsoring a revised bill in their respective Houses because these 

committees have paramount jurisdiction over government information matters. Because of their keen 

interest in this matter and their leadership in addressing the proposed closure of the National Technical 

Information Service, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House 

Committee on Science should continue to play a key leadership role. Undoubtedly the Appropriations 

Committees of both Houses will also be keenly interested, as will the Senate Committee on Rules and 

Administration and the House Committee on House Administration. 

The Commission hopes that a bipartisan, bicameral spirit will prevail in addressing this issue since it 

affects all Americans ability to access information from their government. 

Congress could amend the Printing Act, the Depository Library Act, Administrative Procedure Act, 

the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Freedom of Information Act 

(including E-FOIA), the Privacy Act and other legislation to essentially accomplish the key purposes 

and objectives set out in this report. Nevertheless, the Commission believes this would be a mistake 

for the following reasons. 

First, there would remain a patchwork quilt of laws in which the triad of key ideas: (1) treating public 

information as a strategic national asset, (2) enabling agencies to proactively, with direct 

appropriations support, disseminate their information to the public, and (3) putting a new statutory 

cornerstone in place for public access to government information would be so watered down, and 

masked by the other overriding provisions of those laws, that the idea of treating public information as 

a national resource might as well not have been affirmed as a national goal in the first place. 

Second, all of those existing laws have significant thrusts in, albeit, related, but quite different 

directions, and this would mix "legislative intent apples with oranges" to a large extent. 

The Commission therefore recommends the opposite tack, i.e., implementation of Public Information 

Resources Reform Act of 2000. Other laws that currently touch upon public information dissemination 

should be amended to make them consistent with the new legislation. That is in part what the 

Commission has done in Appendix 12 for the Paperwork Reduction Act, and NCLIS would be pleased 

to assist the President and the Congress in doing this for other statutes and policies. 

The Commission is not unmindful of the fact that enlightened knowledge diffusion cannot be 

legislated, any more than morality. However, without appropriate laws, policies and structures, there is 

virtually no hope whatsoever that progress can be made. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-172 

6. The Congress should establish and fund a new office, the Congressional Information 

Resources Office (CIRO), with appropriate authorities, functions, funding, and programs 

necessary to support the full range of Legislative Branch public information resources 

management responsibilities. The CIRO should incorporate the Government Printing Office 

responsibilities for Legislative Branch printing and related publishing services, whether 

performed directly or procured. 

[Supporting Findings: 1.A, 3.A, 3.B, and 5.C] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

The Legislative Branch should also establish and fund a new office, the Congressional Information 

Resources Management Office (CIRO). This new entity should have authorities, functions, and 

programs necessary to support the full range of Legislative Branch public information resources 

management responsibilities, throughout the entire legislative information life cycle. The new office 

would provide overall policy leadership focus, oversight, coordination, and accountability for the 

Legislative Branch's public information resources programs and have new responsibilities for working 

with the Clerk of the House, Secretary of the Senate, and the heads of other Legislative Branch offices 

and agencies to ensure that information resources management principles and practices are diffused 

more widely throughout the entire Legislative information life cycle. 

As the 1988 OTA report, "Informing the Nation" points out, "given the large number of House, 

Senate, and congressional support offices and units involved with the creation and dissemination of 

congressional information, Congress may wish to establish a formal coordinating mechanism to 

maximize the exchange of learning and minimize the potential overlap, and to take advantage of the 

opportunities for technologically enhanced access. In many respects, electronic dissemination of 

congressional decisions via the Internet is just as important as communicating them by radio and 

television coverage of congressional hearings and floor sessions."259

The Government Printing Office (GPO) is a long-established institution that has served the nation 

extremely well. However, a new vision and business model appropriate to the Internet Age are now 

needed, just as they are needed for NTIS. Incorporation of parts of the GPO into a new CIRO, and 

other parts into PIRA, will streamline, simplify, and modernize the mission of that organization, so 

that it can continue to support printing and related publishing services, whether performed directly or 

procured, to meet the needs of the Congress and other entities in the Legislative Branch. 

 

7. The Judicial Branch should establish, and Congress should fund, a new office, the Judicial 

Information Resources Office (JIRO), in the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, with 

comparable authorities, functions, funding, and programs necessary to support the full 

range of Judicial Branch public information resources management responsibilities, 

including procurement of printing and related publishing services. The JIRO should 

incorporate the Government Printing Office responsibilities for procurement of Judicial 

Branch printing and related publishing services. 

[Supporting Findings: 1.A, 3.A, 3.B and 5.C] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

 

259 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., page 21. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-173 

Similar to the foregoing recommendation with respect to the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch 

should also establish, and the Congress should fund, a new office, the Judicial Information Resources 

Management Office (JIRO), in the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. This new entity should 

have comparable authorities, functions, and programs necessary to support the full range of Judicial 

Branch public information resources management responsibilities, throughout the entire judicial 

information life cycle. The new office would provide overall policy leadership focus, oversight, 

coordination, and accountability for the Judicial Branch's overall public information resources 

programs and have new responsibilities for working with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and other 

Judicial Branch offices to ensure that information resources management principles and practices are 

diffused more widely throughout the entire Judicial information life cycle. 

8. The Congress should extend key provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, notably Section 

3506(d), to the Legislative and Judicial Branches. 

[Supporting Findings: 1.J, 3.A, and 3.B] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

The scope of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 currently applies only to the Executive Branch. 

However, several key sections, notably Section 3506(d), could usefully be extended to the Legislative 

and Judicial Branches as well. For example, section 3506(d) of the Paperwork Reduction 

Reauthorization Act of 1995 states: 

(d) With respect to information dissemination, each agency shall - 

(1) ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to the agency's 

public information, including ensuring such access through 

(A) encouraging a diversity of public and private sources for 

information based on government public information; 

(B) in cases in which the agency provides public information 

maintained in electronic format, providing timely and equitable 

access to the underlying data (in whole or in part); and 

(C) agency dissemination of public information in an efficient, 

effective, and economical manner; 

(2) regularly solicit and consider public input on the agency's information 

dissemination activities; 

(3) provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or 

terminating significant information dissemination products; and260

(4) not, except where specifically authorized by statute - 

(A) establish an exclusive, restricted, or other distribution 

arrangement that interferes with timely and equitable availability of 

public information to the public; 

 

260 One problem with this language in the PRA is the use of the undefined term "significant" to characterize the information 

dissemination products for which notice is required. In its recommendations for changes existing legislation and OMB 

Circular A-130, the Commission recommends clarification of the notice provision to make sure that public needs are 

adequately addressed. This recommendation is in Appendix 12 in Volume 2 of this report, which is available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen12.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-174 

(B) restrict or regulate the use, resale, or redissemination of public 

information by the public; 

(C) charge fees or royalties for resale or redissemination of public 

information; or 

(D) establish user fees for public information that exceed the cost of 

dissemination. 

Other stakeholders commented that notification under Section 3506(d)(3) currently provides no 

specific mechanism for notice. The Commission recommends that this section require notice through 

the Federal Register in addition to any other means the agency may choose to use. 

9. State, local, and tribal levels of government should consider establishing comparable public 

information resources planning, management, and control machinery as that contemplated 

by this report, but tailored to their unique requirements and circumstances. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.J, 3.L, 4.F, 4.J, 5.G, 7.C, 8.A, 8.B and 8.C] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

The Commission recommends above that public information be considered a strategic national asset 

(not just a federal resource). Therefore, state, local, and tribal levels of government should consider 

establishing comparable public information resources planning, management, and control machinery 

as that contemplated by this report for the federal level, but tailored and customized to their own 

unique local requirements and circumstances. Lower levels of government should be encouraged to 

formally designate their respective knowledge holdings as strategic assets and to take appropriate 

actions to implement that concept, so that it is not regarded just as an exhortation, but has practical 

value and utility as reflected by operational programs, policies, and practices at each level of 

government. 

Because the public information resources management problems and challenges faced by one level of 

government are more often than not faced by all levels of government, the Commission believes that 

optimal solutions should ideally be multi-governmental level in scope and applicability. The resolution 

of such problems by each level of government, unilaterally, in a disconnected and disjointed fashion, 

should be discouraged. 

The National Association of State Information Resources Executives (NASIRE) could play a very 

useful role in this regard, in collaboration with other appropriate State, Local, and Tribal government 

bodies at the state legislative, gubernatorial, mayoral, and tribal chief levels. 

10. The President should direct the Secretary of Commerce to affirm that the NTIS mission and 

functions are fundamentally sound even though the agency's business model needs to be 

changed. The agency should remain in the Department of Commerce, operating at a 

satisfactory level of staffing and service, until such time as it is transferred to the proposed 

new Public Information Resources Management Administration (PIRA). 

[Supporting Findings: 6.E and 6.J] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-175 

The President and the Congress should reject the August 1999 proposal made by the Department of 

Commerce to close NTIS and transfer its authorities, collections, and resources to the Library of 

Congress. Instead, NTIS should remain in operation in the Department of Commerce, empowered to 

perform at a satisfactory level of service and staffing, until such time as it's mission and functions are 

transferred into the proposed new Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA). 

Commerce should make the necessary adjustments in its FY 2001, and subsequent fiscal year budgets 

relating to NTIS, so long as that agency remains in the Department, to change the NTIS financing plan 

in accordance with the mix of revenue requirements recommended below. Commerce should also 

ensure that as soon as the Congress authorizes the use of appropriated funds, NTIS change its business 

model as recommended below. 

As the Commission pointed out in its October 10, 2000 letter to Secretary of Commerce Norman Y. 

Mineta, NTIS cannot afford to lose the skills and experience of key staff as personnel, uncertain of 

their agency’s future, seek opportunities in environments far less unsettled. Furthermore, if key 

personnel leave, NTIS must insure adequate and speedy replacement. That is why the Commission 

pointed out that wherever NTIS ends up, it is important that its skilled workers, along with their 

equipment and real property, be transferred as a fully functioning operating entity. The alternative is 

the continued, gradual erosion of the agency’s capability, inevitably reaching a point where it will 

have become so dysfunctional that revitalizing it would be extremely daunting, if not impossible. 

11. Congress should ensure that the public good functions of the NTIS, and other programs for 

the sale of public information, are recognized as inherently governmental activities that 

should be funded directly with appropriated funds. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.E, 5.D, 5.F, 5.H, 6.A, 6.B, 6.C, 6.D, 6.E, 6.F, 6.G, 6.H, 6.I and 6.J] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

Beginning in FY 2001, the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), wherever it may be 

located, should receive appropriated funds to cover its public good activities related to the acquisition, 

organization, and preservation of scientific and technical information for public access because those 

activities are inherently governmental in nature. NTIS should not be required to recover the costs of 

those activities from sales income. These public good operations include the functions necessary to 

ensure that NTIS reports are permanently accessible to the public. These functions include: 

• Collection or acquisition of reports from agencies and contractors. 

• Indexing, abstracting, cataloging, and preservation of these reports. 

• Further processing of reports into the NTIS collection by scanning, microfilming, and archiving. 

• Creation and maintenance of the NTIS database which provides searching and locating 

information for this report collection, including the maintenance of a uniform locator system to 

maintain accessibility to reports on agency websites. 

• Mounting and maintaining of the searchable NTIS database on a website for free public access. 

• Mounting of the full text of the reports—to the extent that they are not available on agency servers 

—on NTIS servers for free public access, including participation in the Federal Depository Library 

Program. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-176 

• Maintenance of its collection to insure permanent, but not necessarily cost-free, public availability 

to historical material not otherwise available.261

The Congress should also reform the business models for other programs based on self-sustaining 

operations for the sale of public information by funding the public good activities through 

appropriations. 

In its March 2000 preliminary assessment report to the President and the Congress on NTIS, the 

Commission recommended the currently estimated annual appropriation sufficient to defray these 

inherently governmental activities to be $5 million per year.262 

Recommendation 4 to establish an information dissemination budget mechanism implicitly recognizes 

the inherently governmental functions of NTIS and provides the agency with a clearly identifiable 

budgetary line item to give it "legal force and effect." 

12. The President should direct the Secretary of Commerce to take the necessary steps to ensure 

that the NTIS business model is updated, and revenues derived from an appropriate mixture 

of three sources: appropriated funds, sales income, and reimbursements from other agencies 

for services provided. Charging policies need also to be simultaneously modified and 

updated. 

[Supporting Findings: 5.F, 6.A, 6.B, 6.C, 6.D, 6.E, 6.F, 6.G, 6.H, 6.I and 6.J] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

The updated proposed NTIS business model should include a mix of three sources of revenue, 

appropriated funds, sales income, and reimbursements from other agencies for services provided. If 

the proposed Information Dissemination Budget (IDB) proposed elsewhere in this report263 is 

approved, the appropriated funds portion of the revenue mix would be included therein. 

Other key elements of the revised business model are: 

• NTIS should no longer charge royalties or impose copyright-like restrictions for products or 

services it provides. 

• Charges for report copies and other tangible information products, regardless of medium or 

format, should be based on the incremental cost of providing the copies. 

• NTIS bibliographic database must be available for free public access. 

• All NTIS public information resources (reports, databases, CD-ROM titles, etc.), other than 

undigitized materials in the retrospective report collection, must be available to the public without 

charge through the Federal Depository Library Program or its successor. This includes undigitized 

reports from the historical collection that are subsequently converted. 

 

261 As is discussed elsewhere in this report, the collection of information for permanent public access is distinct and separate 

from the responsibility of the originating agency to schedule an official record copy of each of its reports and other 

information products for disposition and possible transfer to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for 

"permanent records retention" under the Federal Records Act. 

262 This estimate for the required annual appropriation was provided by NTIS as part of the Commission's earlier study. The 

specific purposes for which it is to be utilized, along with the exact amount required, must be verified before final numbers 

are presented to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

263 The proposal to establish an IDB is in Recommendation 4. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-177 

The cost of providing access to and delivering older, as yet undigitized reports will oftentimes be 

higher than the cost of providing and delivering current reports because of format and medium 

conversions and other special information handling requirements. These costs should be recovered 

through the pricing for such reports. 

13. The President should ensure that public and private sector partnerships are strengthened, 

extended, and expanded in areas where the private sector, including both the for-profit and 

the not-for-profit sectors, can serve as the government's agent or partner in a wide variety of 

public information dissemination roles. This effort will augment, but not replace, the 

government, which must continue to have the primary responsibility for the entire life cycle 

of government information. 

[Supporting Findings: 9.A, 9.B and 9.D] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

The President should ensure that public and private sector partnerships are strengthened, extended, and 

expanded in areas where the private sector can serve as the government's agent or partner in a wide 

variety of public information dissemination roles. In this context, the private sector is used very 

broadly to mean entities other than the government itself, not just the commercial, for-profit sector. 

This includes both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, such as academic and public libraries, 

professional societies and trade associations, hybrids that are joint government/private enterprise, and 

commercial enterprises. Organizations such as these continue to play a crucial role by partnering with 

the government to enhance and enrich the production, organization, searchability, access to, and 

dissemination of public information. 

The government has an affirmative obligation to facilitate a multiplicity and a diversity of sources and 

roles for gaining access to and disseminating public information. Even if government could handle this 

total responsibility alone (which it cannot) the public and private sectors working together in a 

partnership will produce a far better mix of public information products and services for all citizens. 

However, the federal government must continue to have primary responsibility for the entire life cycle 

of electronic government information, including the dissemination and permanent public availability 

of government information to the American public, without restrictions on its use or reuse. 

In addition to participation in public-private sector partnerships, the government should recognize the 

need for, and encourage, independent efforts by the private sector—both profit and not-for-profit—in 

disseminating information and providing value-added products and services that cannot be achieved 

efficiently by the public sector alone or in partnership with the private sector. 

14. The President should ensure that the unique and special public information needs of the 

disabled, the disadvantaged, and other special populations are more broadly, effectively, and 

efficiently taken into account by federal, state, local, and tribal government level plans, 

programs and practices, especially those that address the provisions of Sections 504 and 508 

of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and other statutes which seek 

to remove barriers to public information availability and accessibility for these groups. 

[Supporting Findings: 2.A, 2.B, 2.C, 2.D, 2.E, 2.F, 2.G, 2.H and 2.I] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-178 

The Commission reaffirms the importance of agency compliance with all applicable federal laws 

protecting the rights of disabled and disadvantaged individuals to access public information resources, 

as broadly defined above in this report, easily, effectively, and for free. Each special population has it 

owns unique and distinctive access challenges that must be addressed if they are to be adequately 

served. 

For example, agencies should carefully study the following guidelines in developing their programs 

deaf and hard of hearing persons: 

• Guidelines for Library Services to the American Deaf Community, published in 1996 by the 

Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA).264

• Guidelines for Library Services to Deaf People, published in 1991 by the International Federation 

of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA).265

Agencies should consult the following resources, guidelines and model programs in developing their 

own programs for blind and sight-impaired individuals: 

• The National Library Services (NLS) Collection Building policy, Sources of Braille Reading 

Material, and National Braille Association (NBA) Suggestions for Producing Large Print 

Materials, 2000. 

• ReelBooks.com, an online audio bookstore designed to provide training and employment 

opportunities for the sight impaired and other disabled groups, operated as a strategic partnership 

with the Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind (CLB). 

For other disabilities there are no doubt numerous organizations which have issued similar helpful 

guidelines, and agencies should consider their guidelines to the extent they make public information 

more easily and readily available to these segments of our society. 266

The Web-Based Education Commission is also addressing these problems, and agencies are 

encouraged to consult their reports and recommendations. 

15. The President should direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

meet with appropriate officials in both the Legislative and Judicial branches to identify ways 

to strengthen partnering arrangements and to promote closer and more effective 

coordination among the respective public information dissemination plans, programs, and 

practices of the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.A, 3.H and 3.J] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

An effective means should be established for consultation and cooperation among the three branches 

of government to assure, to the greatest extent possible, that all federal government information is 

available to, and accessible by the public, and maintained in a cost effective manner that reduces 

 

264 Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA), Guidelines for Library Services to the American 

Deaf Community, edited by Marti Goddard, Chicago: American Library Association: 1996. 

265 International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Guidelines for Library Services to Deaf People, edited 

by John Michael Day, 2nd edition, IFLA Professional Reports Series 62, The Hague: International Federation of Library 

Associations and Institutions, 2000. 

266 The survey results related to special populations are summarized in Appendix 28 in Volume 3 of this report and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen28.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-179 

unnecessary overlap and duplication. For example, the development of multi-branch public 

information products is preferable policy than the unnecessary proliferation of single-branch products, 

which too often entails inconsistent and sometimes contradictory availability and accessibility policies 

and guidelines that confuse and frustrate the public. Coordination of policies and procedures across the 

Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches is very important to realization of the overarching 

Commission recommendation that government information be treated as a strategic national asset. A 

commitment by officials in each branch to share information and ideas would be advantageous to all 

involved in disseminating and providing access to public information. If the Congress enacts the 

Commission’s proposed legislation, then the inter-branch, intergovernmental, interagency council 

proposed would serve as one very useful forum for this purpose, but vigilant leadership and enduring 

commitment would still be required 

16. Library and information science professional associations, schools and programs, are well 

positioned to expand education, training, career advancement, and related professional 

programs to prepare librarians and other information professionals to better assist citizen 

end users of public information. Computer science and MIS associations, schools and 

programs should also participate in this effort. Funding for model training programs should 

be provided to libraries and other institutions through the Library Services and Technology 

Act (LSTA) grant programs, as well as through other financing mechanisms. 

[Supporting Findings: 10.D, 10.E, 10.F, and 10.G] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

The Commission will work closely with the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS), 

various professional library and information societies267, library and information schools, and others to 

develop a program aimed at securing grants through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) 

authorities, for the purpose of developing training courses and modules, including online tutorials and 

other materials, targeted to librarians that assist end users of public information. A core of trained 

experts already exists for this purpose in the cadre of highly skilled government document librarians 

who serve the public in virtually every Congressional District in the country through the Federal 

Depository Library Program (FDLP). The FDLP should be given responsibility for increased training 

of these depository librarians and they, in turn, should assume increased responsibility for training 

reference and other librarians to assist the public in the effective identification and use of public 

information. The total grant authority currently available through the LSTA will need to be 

substantially augmented to handle the expansion of training requirements contemplated in this report. 

Computer science and MIS associations, schools and programs can play a similar role for information 

professionals with greater IT needs. 

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Commission has identified various additional budgetary, programmatic, and technical 

recommendations that should be implemented by the President, the Congress, the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the National 

 

267 This will include the American Library Association (ALA), the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), the 

Special Libraries Association (SLA), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), Association of College and Research 

Libraries (ACRL), the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA), the Urban Libraries Council (ULC), the Medical 

Library Association (MLA), among others. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-180 

Science Foundation, and other appropriate agencies and organizations to improve dissemination of, 

and access to, public information resources. 

17. The Department of Commerce and NTIS management should take the necessary actions to 

implement other recommendations contained within this report pertaining to NTIS that are 

appropriate to their levels of authority. 

[Supporting Findings: 6.F, 6.G, 6.H and 6.I] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

The Commission reaffirms its recommendation made in the March 2000 report 

to the President and the Congress that a one-time appropriation, estimated by 

NTIS to be $1.6 million,268 should be approved to defray the costs to set up a 

mechanism to provide free and permanent public availability of current 

materials and future acquisitions, primarily by electronic means, through the 

Federal Depository Library Program. 

The Commission Panel on the Reform of the NTIS Business Model269 recommends that the scope of 

the NTIS collections continue to be guided by 15 CFR 1180 to include information that relates to 

business and industry. The Commission does not believe NTIS' scope should be restricted to science 

and technology narrowly defined. However, the scope should not include general public information 

that does not have a strong and direct relationship with business, industry or technology. The primary 

focus of NTIS should be on its statutory mission to disseminate scientific and technical information 

(STI), and it should not be distracted from that mission by efforts to find sources of revenue. In its 

efforts to find revenue to support its operations, NTIS has expanded the scope of its coverage well 

beyond its primary mission, and even beyond the expanded mission described in 15 CFR 1180.270 

The Commission agrees with the Panel finding that NTIS should continue to sell report copies in 

paper, microfiche and electronic medium formats, as long as the demand for a particular format or 

medium justifies continuing its use. 

 

The Panel made a number of technical recommendations related to NTIS operations, including: 

• Full Electronic Scanning. NTIS should consider changing its method of scanning of report input 

from image-only scanning, which has high storage and bandwidth requirements and limited utility 

on the Internet, to full electronic scanning, which permits full text searching across documents, 

and has lower storage and bandwidth requirements. 

• Source Data Automation. NTIS should obtain full text electronic files of reports from other 

agencies whenever possible to avoid scanning costs. 

 

268 This estimate for a one-time appropriation was provided by NTIS as part of the Commission's earlier study. The specific 

purposes for which it is to be utilized, along with the exact amount required, must be verified before final numbers are 

presented to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

269 Additional details are available in the report from Commission Panel One, which is Appendix 23 in Volume 3 of this 

report. It is also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen23.pdf.

270 For example, the Department of Commerce has questioned NTIS' role in the dissemination of tax forms for the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS), and GPO has questioned the need for NTIS to distribute the Government Manual and other GPO 

general interest "best sellers." 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-181 

• Pointing to Agency Websites. NTIS should provide its users with access to reports made available 

by other agencies on the other agency's websites by pointing from the NTIS database to the 

appropriate location on the other agency's site.271

• Persistent Uniform Resources Locator (PURL) System. NTIS should develop a Persistent Uniform 

Resources Locator (PURL) system and track reports within their scope that are available on other 

agency websites so that NTIS users can find reports on other agency sites when they are moved 

from site to site.272 

• Older Reports and Special Handling Requirements. Reports not available for free on agency sites 

should be made available without charge on an NTIS website whenever it is economically feasible 

to do so. Older reports not in electronic form would not be made available in this manner and 

reports that require special high cost handling could also be excluded.273 The technology used to 

maintain accessibility to older, less frequently used reports, should be selected so as to minimize 

storage and handling costs. 

The Department of Commerce should lift the hiring freeze currently imposed on NTIS to the extent 

necessary to permit the hiring of a sufficient number of proper qualified information professionals 

needed to sustain NTIS at a satisfactory level of service and staffing until such time as it is transferred 

to the Public Information Resources Administration. As the Commission indicated in its October 10, 

2000 letter to the Commerce Department, no matter where, ultimately, NTIS is located 

organizationally, its functions and operations must continue. The government cannot afford to lose the 

skills and expertise of key NTIS staff as more and more NTIS information professionals, uncertain of 

their agency's future, seek opportunities in environments far less unsettled. If the agency's capabilities 

are allowed to erode gradually and inevitably, to a point where it will have become so dysfunctional 

that revitalizing it would be extremely daunting, if not impossible, then no one is the "winner"—the 

Department, the government, the information user, or the taxpayer. 

The Commission reaffirms the recommendation made in the March 2000 report to the President and 

the Congress that a one-time appropriation, estimated by NTIS to be $1.6 million,274 should be 

approved to defray the costs to set up a mechanism to provide free and permanent public availability 

current materials and future acquisitions, primarily by electronic means, through the Federal 

Depository Library Program. Other details of this recommendation are contained in the earlier 

Commission report on the proposed closure of NTIS.275

18. The Congress should exercise greater oversight in authorization and appropriation hearings 

and agency budget reviews on the extent to which lack of enforcement of existing laws is a 

serious impediment to effective public information dissemination. The President should 

ensure that adequate attention is paid to compliance with public information laws through 

 

271 GPO is already taking such steps for information that falls within the scope of the FDLP and NTIS should find ways to 

join in this effort so that both programs are strengthened, and new redundant efforts are not initiated. 

272 GPO is already taking such steps for information that falls within the scope of the FDLP and NTIS should find ways to 

join in this effort so that both programs are strengthened, and new redundant efforts are not initiated. 

273 No explanation of, or justification for creating or charging for, "reports that require special high cost handling" was 

provided by the Panel. Such reports should be funded by the originating agency or some other means, rather than creating an 

exception to the policies recommend by the Commission for free public access and public sale of NTIS reports once the 

public good functions are funded. 

274 This estimate for a one-time appropriation was provided by NTIS as part of the Commission's earlier study. The specific 

purposes for which it is to be utilized, along with the exact amount required, must be verified before final numbers are 

presented to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

275 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed Closure of the 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), op. cit. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-182 

the budget process, in performance reviews such as those required under the Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and in other appropriate oversight contexts. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.A, 3.C, 3.D, 4.I and 4.O] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

Realistic statutory enforcement provisions with real consequences are needed to assure that agencies 

abide by requirements to disseminate and provide access to public information. Such enforcement 

mechanisms are important regardless of whether the requirement is a more general one, e.g., to 

provide such information to all members of the public, or more specific, e.g., the provisions for 

information to GPO for cataloging, indexing and no-fee public access to federal government 

information through the FDLP. Agencies that do not comply with the laws should be subject to 

enforcement mechanisms with real consequences. 

Now and in the future, the Congress should exercise greater oversight in authorization and 

appropriation hearings and agency budget reviews on the extent to which lack of compliance with 

existing laws is a serious impediment to effective public information dissemination. The President 

should ensure that adequate attention is paid to compliance with public information laws through the 

budget process, in performance reviews such as those required under the Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA), and in other appropriate oversight contexts. In the short-term, the Congress 

and the President should conduct compliance reviews on the requirements for deposit of the results of 

federally funded research at NTIS and for full participation in the Catalog of U.S. Government 

Publications and the FDLP of GPO. Current laws do not provide enforcement provisions with real 

consequences, but by calling attention to non-compliance, the President and the Congress can signal to 

agencies that non-compliance is not acceptable and will no longer be tolerated. 

19. The Congress should request that the National Commission on Libraries and Information 

Science (NCLIS) undertake a comprehensive assessment of public laws which contain 

provisions for establishing and maintaining public information resources in order to identify 

(1) specific legislative changes necessary to implement the treatment of public information as 

a strategic national asset, (2) gaps where existing laws do not meet known public needs for 

government information and (3) inconsistencies and unnecessary overlap and duplication in 

public information dissemination provisions. The assessment could also be extended to 

include current statutory, grant, procurement, and other government rules, regulations, and 

guidelines that permit government-funded research to avoid dissemination through the 

NTIS and FDLP. 

[Supporting Finding: 3.B] 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term]

The Congress should request that NCLIS undertake a comprehensive assessment of the hundreds of 

laws currently in effect that contain provisions for the establishment and maintenance of public 

information resources. 276 The Commission would be pleased to perform this task, but would prefer to 

do so with the assistance of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the General Accounting 

Office (GAO), and the National Academy of Sciences. Obviously, such an analysis will require close 

collaboration with senior officials in all three branches of the federal government. 

 

276 The need for such an analysis is discussed in Conclusion 4. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-183 

The purpose of such an assessment would be to harmonize individual existing statutes with the 

Commission's legislative proposal and other recommendations. It should not be assumed that the 

existing statutory foundation for disseminating government information to the public, notably FOIA 

and E-FOIA, but including the Privacy Act and other Congressional and Executive guidance, is 

adequate because the public has many information needs that are not necessarily and fortuitously 

addressed by existing legislation. Diffusing government knowledge to the public depends on first 

identifying the public's real needs for government information without being constrained by existing 

laws.277 This research should be closely coordinated with the analysis of public needs for public 

information resources included in Recommendation 25. 

In addition, the Congress should request that the Commission, in consultation with other agencies, 

determine if statutory, grant, procurement, and other government rules, regulations, and guidelines, 

might be strengthened to maximize the availability to the public of the results of government-funded 

work. As noted earlier, sometimes government-funded research ends up being published through 

professional journals or other copyrighted publications, with no version available in the public 

domain. There are also certain NSF-funded grants where the grant terms do not specify the production 

of a report, but a deliverable that is much less concrete and specific, such as "the advancement of 

knowledge." Such information does not currently find its way into the public domain. As a result, it is 

not available through NTIS or GPO, and it does not find it way into the FDLP for free public access. 

These "loopholes" need to be addressed to ensure that the public receives access as part of the return 

on its investment of tax dollars. 

20. The President should direct the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in collaboration 

with the new Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA), to strengthen, and 

institutionalize if necessary, interagency and intergovernmental cooperative efforts to 

promote greater interagency and intergovernmental information sharing. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.H, 4.B, 4.D, 4.E, 4.F, 4.G, 5.C, 5.G, 5.H, 7.C, 8.A, 8.B and 8.C] 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term]

At a minimum, OMB Circular A-130 should be amended to promote greater intergovernmental and 

interagency sharing of government information resources, not just for the purpose of avoiding 

unnecessary proliferation of new information systems where existing systems could serve the need, 

which is the current rationale, but, at the information product level for the purpose of diffusing 

knowledge to a far wider government agency audience. In short, for both the "negative reasons" 

currently cited (i.e., avoiding unnecessary systems duplication), as well as for the "positive reasons" 

mentioned herein (i.e., because greater diffusion of knowledge leads to a multiplier effect for obtaining 

greater value from information investments). 

21. The President should direct the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to streamline, 

simplify, and integrate "Government Information Life-Cycle Planning and Management" in 

the next revision of OMB Circular A-130, including taking steps to design, develop, and pilot 

test an integrated information life cycle management software tool that would satisfy 

multiple, statutory information policy requirements in a systematic and comprehensive 

manner. The Congress should include comparable and consistent revisions in the 

forthcoming reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act in 2001. 

 

277 This recommendation closely relates to Recommendation 21 on the need for new research in this area. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-184 

[Supporting Findings: 5.E, 5.G, 5.H, 5.I and 5.J] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

The phrase "information life-cycle planning" as defined in OMB Circular A-130, and its practical 

applicability to agency planning and management goals, should be strengthened to address planning 

for the sharing and use of information content for research and development, for decision-making, and 

to ensure an adequate record of governmental activities. The core idea is to put in place an integrated 

and synchronized software tool that would satisfy in a one-stop service fashion the multiple and 

diverse statutory requirements for managing and disseminating information once created,278 such as 

scheduling official agency records, creating GILS records, submitting information to GPO for the 

Catalog of U.S. Government Publications and the FDLP. Analysis, recently begun by GAO, should be 

carried forward to determine what is needed to ensure privacy, confidentiality, security, and 

authenticity as information is shared and integrated across agencies, and policies established and 

implemented. As mentioned in Recommendation 15, OMB and PIRA officials should meet with 

Legislative and Judicial officials to identify mutually agreeable steps that could lead to greater 

realization of the full potentials of the integrated information life cycle concept. 

Because the problems and challenges faced by agencies in managing their internal agency information 

resources are increasingly converging with the problems and challenges they face in managing their 

public information resources, the integrated government information life cycle concept is a tool that 

offers greater promise than ever in simplifying, streamlining, and speeding up the many processes 

involved. Moreover, it is already identified in OMB Circular A-130 as an important concept, but it s 

full potential has never been realized. 

This effort should be integrated with work on information life cycle management that is already 

ongoing at NARA and other agencies, as well as other federal agency initiatives addressing 

preservation and accessibility issues. 

22. The President should direct the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to utilize the 

Federal WebMasters Forum and CIO Council to lead an effort to explore the design, 

development, and pilot testing of a comprehensive public information current awareness 

system to enable affirmative dissemination of public information. 

[Supporting Findings: 1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 1.D, 1.G, 1.K, 2.B, 3.C, 4.C and 4.O] 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term]

The Federal WebMasters Forum, working with other elements of the CIO Council, should explore the 

design, development, and pilot testing of a comprehensive public information current awareness 

system. This work should involve CENDI member agencies and other federal agencies and entities 

experienced with selective dissemination of information (SDI). Consultation with electronic 

publishing specialists, public affairs specialists, and other interagency groups such as FLICC, the FPC, 

and the FGDC, and public interest groups such as APDU and ACE, is also recommended. The system 

should allow individuals and groups to prepare standing profiles of their government information 

needs that could be used to affirmatively disseminate public information relevant to their respective 

special interests in a given topic. Such a system should operate at both the agency level, and at the 

 

278 A White Paper on government information life cycle management is in Appendix 16 in Volume 3 of this report and also 

at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen16.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-185 

level of the central information service agencies. It should allow user profiles to be updated 

periodically to reflect changes in their needs and interests. 

In the Internet Age current awareness techniques and methods are more efficient and cost-effective 

than they were in the online era, much less in pre-electronic eras. Therefore, individual agency 

initiatives should be studied and the most promising approaches that agencies have developed should 

be distilled and transformed into prototypes, best practices and guidelines from which all agencies 

might benefit. Workshops to help the smaller agencies, and those with less IT-intensive capabilities, 

would seem especially helpful.

Such a comprehensive current awareness system should be able to operate at both the agency level and 

at the level of the central information service agencies. In the Commission’s view, such a system 

would go a very long way toward satisfying the need for "proactive dissemination" that the 

Commission identifies throughout this report. 

23. The President should establish an interagency committee, coordinated by the CIO Council, 

to identify and recommend how standard and consistent federal identifiers can be used to 

assist agencies and the public to obtain information residing in different agencies. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.J, 3.L, 4.F, 5.G and 5.H] 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term]

An interagency committee should identify and recommend how standard and consistent federal 

identifiers can be used to assist agencies and the public to obtain information residing in different 

agencies. This effort should be coordinated by the CIO Council and include the participation of the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Information Standards 

Organization (NISO) and the new Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA). The use of 

standard federal identifiers applies to all government information, not just public information 

resources. 

Establishing standard and consistent identifiers reduces the burden on both agencies and the public 

who now use multiple identifiers to comply with inconsistent and duplicative requirements steaming 

from a variety of laws and regulations. Access reforms should be designed to help agencies and the 

public to comply with the laws and regulations. Such recommendations should be forwarded to the 

President's Management Council for use in the development of FirstGov, the government's web portal. 

24. The President should direct the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in partnership 

with the CIO Council, to conduct a comprehensive analysis and make recommendations 

addressing the most efficient ways to crosswalk, coordinate, and harmonize the many state 

and local government uniquely assigned identification numbers. This effort should include 

the participation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the 

National Information Standards Organization (NISO). 

[Supporting Findings: 1.D, 1.E, 3.H, 3.L, 4.F, 5.G and 5.H] 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term]
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-186 

A comprehensive analysis should be conducted and recommendations formulated as to the most 

efficient ways to translate, coordinate, crosswalk, and harmonize the many state and local government 

uniquely assigned identification numbers that are used to manage permitting, licensing, and 

compliance records with the corresponding federal unique identifiers. Both the Federal Information 

Processing Standards (FIPS) and the Federal Telecommunications Standards (FTS) programs are 

important vehicles for accomplishing this goal. 

25. The President should direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in 

collaboration with the CIO Council, to conduct a comprehensive analysis regarding which 

currently non-digital government information holdings should be converted to digital 

mediums, and the benefits as well as costs to do so. This effort should address the role of 

digital libraries with respect to public information resources. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.J, 4.F and 4.M] 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term]

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should establish an interagency ad hoc committee, in 

collaboration with the CIO Council, to conduct a comprehensive analysis regarding which currently 

non-digital government information holdings should be converted to digital mediums, and the benefits 

as well as the costs to do so. The committee should also conduct a comprehensive analysis regarding 

what needs to be done to assure permanent public availability of, accessibility to, preservation of, and 

authentication of digital publications produced by federal agencies. 

In consort with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Information 

Standards Organization (NISO), the Federal Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC) and 

others, the committee should develop an information taxonomy for government-wide use. The advice 

of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation might also be solicited. 

This is essential to portals such as First Gov and for maintaining a minimum level of consistent 

description for all government information resources, regardless of what other cataloging and indexing 

may be done for specialized purposes.279

The committee should ensure the development of an Government Information Life Cycle Management 

software module for use throughout the federal government that would permit the satisfying of 

multiple statutory information resource management requirements in a systematic, harmonized, 

integrated fashion so as to eliminate or minimize overlapping, duplicative, and conflicting ad hoc 

polices, procedures, and guidelines currently being followed.280

26. The President should direct the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in partnership 

with the CIO Council and the Federal WebMasters Forum, to develop guidelines regarding 

the availability of public information resources holdings by each branch and level of 

government. Each of the three branches of the federal government, as well as federal only, 

state only, local only, tribal only, or some permutation of these categories should be 

differentiated. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.H, 5.G, 8.A, 8.B and 8.C] 

 

279 There is additional discussion of this issue under Finding 6.B. 

280 A White Paper on government information life cycle management is available as Appendix 16 in Volume 3 of this report 

and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen16.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-187 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term]

The President should direct the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in partnership with the 

CIO Council and the Federal WebMasters Forum, to develop draft guidelines regarding public 

information resource availability by each branch and level of government, including all three branches 

of the federal government, the federal level only, the state level only, the tribal level only, or some 

permutation of these in order to avoid unnecessary overlap and duplication. The guidelines should be 

submitted to the CIO Council for review and concurrence. Knowledgeable interagency committees 

such as CENDI, the Interagency Committee on Federal Statistics (ICFS) and the Office of 

Intergovernmental Affairs (OIA) in the Executive Office of the President should assist it in the 

development of the guidelines, as well public user groups such as Association of Public Data Users 

(APDU) and Americans Communicating Electronically (ACE). 

27. The President should direct the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to utilize the CIO 

Council and the Federal WebMasters Forum to begin preliminary design work for the 

development of a single, central, comprehensive and authoritative online inventory and 

database of public information resources by reviewing the developments to-date, both 

positive and negative, to establish major portals for public information including FedWorld, 

GPO Access, Library of Congress Thomas, StatUSA, and FirstGov. 

[Supporting Findings: 1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 1.E, 1.G, 3.C, 3.G, 4.L, 5.D, 5.K and 5.L] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

As noted earlier in this report, the developments already undertaken to establish the major portals for 

public information, including FedWorld, GPO Access, Library of Congress Thomas, StatUSA, and 

FirstGov, are a logical starting point for a single, central, comprehensive and authoritative online 

inventory and database of publicly available public information resources. Although currently 

disparate in purpose, scope, organizational location, content, and data formats and mediums, the 

experience gained in developing these portals and the data already gathered, will be invaluable in the 

design and development of a comprehensive inventory and database. Utilization of these experiences 

and integration of these resources is the logical beginning of a truly comprehensive inventory and 

database of public information resources. 

Pending the establishment of PIRA, which should have the ultimate responsibility for the design and 

implementation of such a comprehensive inventory and database, the Federal WebMasters Forum 

should conduct a preliminary exploration and summation of government experiences to date, both 

negative and positive, with the design, development, and implementation of the major portals. The 

objective should be to prepare a set of findings and recommendations on a preferred approach for the 

development and operation of a comprehensive inventory of public information resources. This effort 

should be accomplished in collaboration with NARA, other agencies that have already established 

portals and interagency organizations knowledgeable about publishing and information dissemination. 

The WebMasters recommendations would be submitted to the CIO Council and shared with 

stakeholders inside and outside of government. It would become the basis for consolidation of the 

existing portals under PIRA as soon as that agency is established. 

28. The President should direct federal agencies to specify the metadata by which each of their 

records series will be classified when seeking National Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA) approval to schedule or dispose of their records. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-188 

[Supporting Findings: 4.O, 5.J, 5.K and 5.L] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

This approach will aid in the searching and acquisition of public information, preferably on the 

Internet. Agencies should also be required to consult with their stakeholders concerning needed 

information taxonomies within the context of their annual GPRA performance plans and reports. It is 

fully realized that the mission of the National Archives with respect to the Federal Records Act, and 

the mission of the new Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) as contemplated herein, 

will require some accommodation because "public information products" are defined somewhat 

differently, using different words and terms. Still, the Commission strongly believes there is ample 

room for achieving a greater degree of harmony and consistency in the metadata requirements so that 

neither federal agencies nor the public face the burdens and frustrations of having to learn excessive 

details in order to search the holdings of the various record and document collections and databases. 

29. Existing central information service agencies, such as GPO, NTIS and NARA, should 

identify additional partnering arrangements whereby academic and other types of libraries, 

mission agencies and government-wide information service agencies can collaborate to 

ensure digitization, preservation and permanent public availability of public information 

resources. 

[Supporting Findings: 9.D and 10.F] 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term]

The GPO should extend and expand its efforts to establish formal agreements for collaboration 

between academic and other types of libraries (particularly federal depository libraries), mission 

agencies, and GPO and/or other government-wide information services agencies. This responsibility 

should be transferred to the Public Information Resources Administration, if and when it is statutorily 

established. GPO should work closely with the existing government-wide information services 

agencies, such as NTIS and NARA, as well as the Library of Congress, the national libraries, and 

NCLIS. Various interagency committees, such as CENDI, FLICC, FPC, ICPPS and the CIO Council, 

can assist in the effort to identify additional opportunities for collaboration that ensures digitization, 

preservation and permanent public availability of public information resources. The agreement entered 

into by the University of Illinois at Chicago, the Department of State, and the Government Printing 

Office with respect to the selection acquisition, preservation, and archiving of certain foreign affairs 

materials is an excellent model for this collaboration. 

30. The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) 

should coordinate the planning and undertaking of an information research program to 

identify the public's most critical unmet requirements for public information resources. 

[Supporting Findings: 1.C, 1.G, 2.A, 3.B, 4.O, 10.E, 10.F and 10.H] 

[Time Frame: Long-Term]

As noted earlier, many needs for public information resources are not adequately met by any existing 

law or program, and no systematic effort has been made to identify these needs and determine how 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-189 

best to meet them.281 An information research program should be established to address the public's 

most critical requirements for public information resources. This research should be aimed at 

identifying what new government knowledge sources, services, and systems need to be developed to 

help the public cope more effectively with the gaps in their knowledge. 

The public's information needs do not always neatly match legislated program 

requirements, and many needs are as yet unfulfilled. 

Traditionally, Congress has required government to disseminate information to the public primarily as 

a by-product response to very specific and carefully circumscribed program areas, such as energy, the 

environment, safety in the workplace, and so forth. Yet the public's information needs do not always 

neatly match these legislated program requirements, and many public information needs are as yet 

unfulfilled. This is a chicken-and-the-egg proposition—which comes first, the public information need 

or the legislation to address it. The Commission believes the former should not necessarily be 

predicated on the latter. That is why brand new government knowledge resources need to be identified, 

designed, developed, and provided to the public based on a continuous monitoring process for 

identifying the public's unmet needs. This recommendation closely relates to the recommendation 

above regarding the need for the Congress to analyze existing statutes in this context. This research 

should be closely coordinated with the analysis of federal information dissemination statues included 

in Recommendation 18. 

31. The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) should coordinate 

the development and undertaking of an information research program to address the full 

range of federal government's most critical unmet requirements for specialized and state-ofthe-art technologies in such fields as information security, privacy, authentication, 

preservation, and data integration, as well as the application of artificial intelligence and 

experts system.

[Supporting Findings: 4.N and 10.H] 

[Time Frame: Long-Term]

An information research program should be established to address technological and software 

solutions to the federal government's most critical unmet requirements for specialized and state-of-theart technologies as well as the application of artificial intelligence and experts system. Certainly these 

needs include: information security (including information integrity and authenticity), privacy, data 

integration, preservation, and the development of scalable federal information infrastructure. 

The Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Expert Systems (ES) areas, as well as automatic indexing and 

abstracting, are other research areas that offer promise. NCLIS, NAS and NSF, in consultation with 

the DOD Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and other agencies, should look carefully at 

academic and research proposals, government-sponsored research opportunities, and financial 

assistance possibilities to support both pure and applied research in these areas. Members of CENDI 

and FGDC could also serve as expert technical advisors to this initiative. 

 

281 This is identified as an issue that needs to be addressed in the section entitled "The Problems That Need to Be Fixed." 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-190 

32. The President should direct the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in 

collaboration with the new Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA), to assume 

its statutory role to provide policy guidance and oversight in the effective management of 

scientific and technical information (STI)—and perhaps even to form a COSATI-like group, 

which has membership from both the public and private sectors. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.M, 5.A, 5.B, 5.C, 5.D, 7.A and 7.B] 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term]

Although scientific and technical information (STI) is perhaps better managed than most government 

information, it is a critical national resource that warrants a strong special central leadership capability 

to maximize resource sharing, both among government agencies and with the general public, and to 

provide policy leadership focus, oversight, and program management coordination. The Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should provide this leadership, in collaboration with the new 

Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA). 

33. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should closely monitor the 

cooperation between the proposed Public Information Resources Administration (PIRA) 

and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), to ensure the establishment 

of uniform standards and guidelines that would make it much simpler and easier for 

agencies to provide one copy of an information product, when it is first created at the earliest 

possible moment in the information life cycle, for both permanent public availability and, if 

scheduled by NARA, for permanent records retention. 

[Supporting Findings: 4.B, 4.H, 4.I, 5.H, 5.J and 5.M] 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term] 

There is understandable and justifiable concern that electronic public 

information resources are being lost even while we are struggling to develop 

and implement the necessary laws, policies and standards to preserve it. 

Under the watchful eye of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Public 

Information Resources Administration (PIRA) and the National Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA) should establish a formal relationship to ensure that standards and guidelines are established 

within one year of enactment of the proposed Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001, so 

that an agency transferring its public information resources to PIRA for permanent public availability 

can, by that same transfer, ensure that its obligations for permanent records retention under the Federal 

Records Act will also be met simultaneously. Moreover, other federal information policy requirements 

can also simultaneously be met, such as the creation of a Government Information Locator Service 

(GILS) record. To accomplish these actions, PIRA and NARA must establish and promulgate 

cooperative standards and guidelines for the authentication and transfer of agency public information 

resources to PIRA. The PIRA will ensure the permanent public availability of these public information 

resources, and through cooperative agreements and partnership arrangements with NARA and the 

originating agency, PIRA will either maintain the public information resources that NARA schedules 

for permanent records retention, or transfer the official record copy of those public information 

resources to NARA at the appropriate time and in the appropriate format. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-191 

Public information resources not scheduled for permanent records retention because the information 

product does not fall within the scope of the Federal Records Act, will nevertheless be maintained by 

PIRA for permanent public availability. Agencies that maintain their own permanent public 

availability by agreement with PIRA will be responsible for transfer of the official record copy of 

those public information resources to NARA at the appropriate time and in the appropriate format, if 

they are scheduled for permanent records retention. 

The Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents have been conducting interagency meetings 

on the subject of permanent public availability for some time. NARA is a participant in those 

meetings, as are the Commission, the Library of Congress, the other national libraries, and other 

interested parties. Until the Public Information Resources Reform Act of 2001 is enacted, these 

meetings should continue as an important forum for the discussion of development and 

implementation of government-wide guidelines and standards to ensure the harmonization of 

permanent public availability requirements with permanent records retention requirements. 

There is understandable and justifiable concern that electronic public information resources are being 

lost even while we are struggling to develop and implement the necessary laws, policies and standards 

to preserve it. Electronic publishing is widely decentralized in most agencies, making it difficult, if not 

impossible, to educate all of the individuals who need to know about the statutory obligations for 

transfer of agency information products to the Government Printing Office (GPO) for the Federal 

Depository Library Program (FDLP), the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and NARA. 

Developing a simple, cost-effective means to transfer agency public information resources once and, 

by so doing, fulfill all of the statutory mandates for organizing and describing (cataloging, indexing, 

abstracting), announcing, depositing or transferring, archiving and authentication of that information is 

crucial to effective compliance. There are no statutory barriers to such an effort, and intra- and 

interagency collaboration is essential to preserve our public information resources, both for permanent 

public availability and, where appropriate, for permanent records retention. 

34. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should ensure that each data 

element in the agency reporting requirements for the Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act (GPEA) should be reported in XML and stored in a comprehensive and authoritative 

registry. A survey of the impact of changing formats should be periodically undertaken at 

least once every three years. 

[Supporting Findings: 3.L, 4.B and 4.F] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), Title XVII of Public Law 105-277, promotes the 

use of digital signatures and the submission of reports to the federal government electronically. 

Attachment B, Element #4, Interagency Reporting Requirements of the OMB implementing guidance 

calls for "a short description of the interagency report or information dissemination product." Generic 

descriptions of each report and "dissemination product" are better than nothing. (By law, any 

"dissemination product" deemed to be "major" already should be described in the Government 

Information Locator Service (GILS).) However, in order to share information efficiently and 

effectively across agencies, as well as with the public, each "data element" within each report or 

"dissemination product" will need to be identified and its characteristics should be specified. The 

logical time to do so is when designing the "forms" which will gather the data. The best way to avoid 

needless redundancies is provide for a comprehensive and authoritative registry of the data elements 

and require the agencies to consult it before establishing any new elements on any forms. These data 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-192 

elements should be reported to OMB in eXtensible Markup Language (XML) to facilitate creation and 

management of the database. 

At least once every three years, a survey should be undertaken by the PIRA, or in its absence, by 

NCLIS, on the migration of pre-electronic to electronic formats and the migration from one electronic 

format to another. This survey would be modeled on the survey that Westat performed for NCLIS in 

1998.282 That survey would endeavor to pinpoint "preferred" formats for the full range of data types: 

• Bibliographic data. 

• Graphical data (photos, charts, graphs, drawings). 

• Numerical data. 

• Sound. 

• Spatial data (maps, coordinate files). 

• Textual data (books, serials, reports). 

• Video. 

• Multimedia (sound, video, text, graphics). 

• Other formats. 

The major format types should also be surveyed to attempt to discern patterns of preference, including: 

• Database formats (Oracle, Sybase, dBase, WAIS, MARC). 

• Spreadsheet formats (Excel, Lotus 1-2-3). 

• Tagged Markup formats (HTML, XML, SGML). 

• Image formats (GIF, JPEG, TIFF, PDF). 

• Audio formats (WAV, AU, AIFF). 

• Video formats (MOV, MPEG, AVI). 

• Text format (ASCII, Rich Text, ANSI). 

• Word Processing format (WordPerfect, Microsoft Word). 

• Other formats. 

Online approaches would also be tracked. For example: 

• User Interfaces Supported (Netscape, Internet Explorer, Telnet, FTP, non-graphical/dial-up shell). 

• Web Design Approaches (Basic HTML only, Tables, Frames, CGI Scripts, use of Java script, Use 

of Java Applets, XML). 

• Bulletin Board Systems (Graphical interface/browser). 

How information products are searched, how they are retrieved, changes if any in the type of data 

included, changes if any in what particular timeframe (short, medium, long-term), the use of metadata 

records, and policies relating to permanent public availability and accessibility, permanent records 

retention, preservation, and authentication, would also be surveyed. 

 

282 Westat, Inc., op. cit. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-193 

35. The President should direct the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and 

the Secretary of Labor to review federal civil service classifications and the Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles, respectively, to ensure that they adequately reflect the new skills and 

occupations required by the Internet Age. The President should also direct the Director of 

the OPM to identify the critical training needs of the federal workforce and then review 

training programs offered by the government and by the private sector to ensure the 

availability of computer and information literacy programs adequate to meet the needs of 

the federal workforce. 

[Supporting Findings: 9.F and 9.G] 

[Time Frame: Short-Term]

The traditional information professionals such as librarians, records specialists, public affairs 

specialists, technical information specialists, and so forth, are transforming themselves in the 

workplace into knowledge professionals appropriate to the Internet Age. All of these traditional 

professions are becoming more diversified, their skill and competency requirements enriched, and 

their experience portfolios widened as a result of the demands placed upon them by their jobs. 

However, the traditional ways government classifies positions and duties in the various manpower and 

personnel systems it employs, such as the Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 

and the Office of Personnel Management’s system of classifying civil service positions, and the 

Department of State’s system of classifying foreign service positions, and the Department of Health 

and Human Service’s system of classifying health professional positions, and so on, are not keeping 

pace. As a result, careers in government are not as attractive, or as well paid, as they are in private 

industry. Therefore the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Secretary of 

Labor should coordinate a review of these various classifications systems to ensure that they 

adequately reflect the new skills and occupations required by the Internet Age. 

Similarly, opportunities for training, re-training, and professional development are not adequate to 

ensure the computer and information literacy needs of the federal workforce or to attract and hold a 

skilled federal workforce. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) should identify 

the training needs of the workforce and then review training programs offered by the government and 

by the private sector to ensure the availability of computer and information literacy programs adequate 

to meet the needs of the federal workforce. This review should include individual training agency 

programs, the USDA Graduate School, the Institute for Federal Printing and Electronic Publishing at 

GPO, programs sponsored by the Small Agency Council, and training offered by various interagency 

groups. It should also include training available through the for-profit and not-for-profit private sector, 

including professional associations and societies, academic institutions, trade schools, and other 

commercial training programs. 

All of these things need to be accomplished in order to attract, retain and develop a skilled federal 

workforce and transform government information into a strategic national asset. 

36. The Commission, working with the Department of State, the Department of Education, the 

National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL), and other interested individuals and 

organizations, should pro-actively pursue the idea of advancing the concept of treating 

public sector information as a strategic national asset in other nations. 

[Supporting Findings: 11.A] 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-194 

[Time Frame: Medium-Term]

The Commission, working with the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Education, the 

National Forum on Information Literacy (NFIL), and other interested individuals and organizations, 

should pro-actively pursue the idea of advancing the concept of treating public sector information as a 

strategic national asset in other nations. A modest start in this direction could be a planning workshop 

utilizing UNESCO as the venue. Since the European Union has already moved in this direction, it 

could be a useful partner as well. 

The European Union has already held the United States up as a model for public access to information 

in its Green Paper entitled Public Sector Information: A Key Resource For Europe; Green Paper on 

Public sector Information in the Information Society.

283 The U.S. government can do more to make 

these policies known to other countries, and to the extent that the U.S. government reforms its own 

public information dissemination laws and policies as recommended by the Commission in this report, 

it can become an even better model for other countries to follow. 

 

283 European Commission, Public Sector Information: A Key Resource For Europe, op. cit. Excerpts from the Green Paper 

are available as Appendix 30 in Volume 3 of this report and also at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen30.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-195 

G. IMPLEMENTATION 

It should be emphasized that the foregoing recommendations are just that, recommendations. The 

Commission believes that implementation of these recommendations will vastly improve the condition 

of government information dissemination in the United States, but it also recognizes that others have 

different views. It is up to the President and Congress, as the recipients of this report, to determine 

whether and to what extent these recommendations should be implemented. The Commission stands 

ready to fulfill its statutory obligation to provide advice to the President and Congress in whatever way 

may be helpful. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-196 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-197 

APPENDICES

 NOTE: Appendices 1 through 10 are included in this volume of the Commission's 

report, A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination, Volume 1. 

Appendices 11 and 12 are in Volume 2, Legislative and Regulatory Proposals; it is 

available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol2.pdf. 

Appendices 13 through 34 are in Volume 3, Supplementary Reference Materials; it is 

available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol3.pdf. 

Appendix 35 is in Volume 4, Compilation of Recent Federal Statutes on Information 

Dissemination; it is available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol4.pdf. 

Each appendix is also available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html as an 

individual file. The unique file name for each appendix is included as the appendix is 

inserted or identified below. 

Most of the appendices were posted on the Commission website during the course of 

the study to facilitate public access, review and comment. The appendices, and other 

files providing background on the assessment, will remain on the Commission website 

for permanent public availability. The Commission feels that this method of 

distribution is in keeping with the subject matter of this report, which encourages 

agencies to ensure the permanent public availability of their electronic government 

information resources. 

Appendices submitted to the Commission as paper copies have been scanned and 

reformatted, so the content is as submitted, but the format is different. Electronic 

submissions have also been reformatted, but the content is as submitted. 

APPENDIX 1. LETTER FROM SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN TO NCLIS 

CHAIRPERSON MARTHA B. GOULD, JUNE 12, 2000 

United States Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Washington, DC 20510-6125

June 12, 2000 

The Honorable Martha Gould 

Chairperson 

United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-198 

Suite 820 

Washington, DC 20005-3552 

Dear Chairperson Gould: 284 

On October 21, 1999, the Commerce Committee held a hearing on the re-organization of the National 

Technical Information Service. At that hearing, the Committee heard testimony on the need for a 

formal study on the proposed organizational changes to the National Technical Information Service 

(NTIS) and overall government information dissemination policy. 

The Committee would like to request that you undertake a review of the reforms necessary for the 

federal government's information dissemination practices. At a minimum, this review should include 

assessments of the need for: 

• proposing new or revised laws, rules, regulations, missions, and policies; 

• modernizing organization structures and functions so as to reflect greater emphasis on electronic 

information planning, management, and control capabilities, and the need to consolidate, 

streamline, and simplify missions and functions to avoid or minimize unnecessary overlap and 

duplication; 

• revoking NTIS self-sufficiency requirement; and 

• strengthening other key components of the overall federal information dissemination 

infrastructure. 

You are also requested to provide specific recommendations on the future of NTIS. It is hopeful that 

these recommendations would be consistent with any overall federal government information 

dissemination recommendations that you would also provide. 

In formulating this review, I ask that you consult with the Federal agencies, the research library 

communities, the state librarian communities, the user communities, and other relevant public and 

private sector organizations, as well as individual citizens. I feel that these are key stakeholders in this 

area and they input will be of great value to the Commission in completing this request. 

To facilitate action on this matter during the next Congressional session, I ask that you complete your 

review and recommendations December 15, 2000. If you have any additional questions or need further 

assistance, please feel free to contact my staff at 202-224-8172. 

Sincerely, 

/signed/ 

John McCain 

Chairman 

 

284 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/mccain.html and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen1.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-199 

APPENDIX 2. REPLY FROM NCLIS CHAIRPERSON MARTHA B. GOULD TO 

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, JUNE 27, 2000 

United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

June 27, 2000 

The Honorable John McCain 

Chairman 

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6125 

Dear Chairman McCain, 285 

Thank you very much for your June 12, 2000 letter to me asking the U.S. National Commission on 

Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) to undertake a review of the reforms necessary for the 

federal government's information dissemination practices. You also requested us to provide specific 

recommendations on the future of NTIS that are consistent with any overall recommendations we 

provide. 

We are honored that your Committee has asked us to make this comprehensive assessment of the 

government's public information dissemination laws, policies, programs, and practices. We have 

already learned that several other Senate and House committees are also quite interested in this 

undertaking. We will endeavor to stay in close touch with the Congress as we proceed, as well as key 

elements of the Executive Branch including the Department of Commerce, the Office of Management 

and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology. 

We shall also coordinate our review closely with the major government information resources 

agencies and other stakeholder groups, including the National Technical Information Service, the 

Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, the Chief Information Officers Council, and 

various interagency committees, public data user groups, public interest groups, library associations 

and groups, information and information technology trade associations, and the unions. 

We will do our utmost to complete the study by December 15, 2000, as you request. 

Sincerely yours, 

/signed/ 

Martha Gould 

NCLIS Chair 

 

285 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/replymcc.html and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen2.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-200 

APPENDIX 3. LETTER FROM SENATOR JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN TO NCLIS 

CHAIRPERSON MARTHA B. GOULD, JULY 17, 2000 

United States Senate 

Committee on Governmental Affairs 

Washington, DC 20510-6250

July 17, 2000 

The Honorable Martha Gould 

Chairperson 

United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Suite 820 

Washington, DC 20005-3552 

Dear Chairperson Gould: 286 

I am writing to join in Senator McCain's June 12 request for a review of reforms to improve the 

federal government's information dissemination practices. The results of that study will prove 

invaluable to my work as Ranking Democrat of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has 

jurisdiction over most of our federal government's information dissemination practices. The study will 

also help inform my efforts to promote e-government, which includes making federal information 

more available over the Internet. 

I would suggest two additions to the Commission's study. Senator McCain's letter of June 12 asked 

that the Commission include assessments of the need for proposing new or revised laws or regulations. 

I would ask that the Commission include in that review any relevant sections of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act that may need revision, because the Committee will be considering the law's 

reauthorization next Congress. Second, when the Commission considers the future of the National 

Technical Information Service, I would ask that it consider the viability of maintaining NTIS as a 

centralized fully electronic repository of federal scientific and technical information, accessible via the 

Internet and equipped with search and retrieval capabilities. 

Please contact Kevin Landy of my staff at (202) 224-7194 with questions about this request. 

Sincerely, 

/signed/ 

Joseph I. Lieberman 

 

286 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/liebermn.html and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen3.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-201 

APPENDIX 4. REPLY FROM NCLIS CHAIRPERSON MARTHA B. GOULD TO 

SENATOR JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, AUGUST 7, 2000 

United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

August 7, 2000 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman 

Ranking Democrat 

Committee on Governmental Affairs 

706 Hart Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510-6250 

Dear Senator Lieberman: 287 

I am writing this letter, on the very day Vice President Gore has announced you as his running mate, 

to thank you for your July 17 letter to me regarding the NCLIS study of public information 

dissemination reforms. I therefore am taking advantage of this opportunity to congratulate you on this 

momentous occasion. I am confident that your well-known dedication to our great Country's ideals, 

values, and traditions, could be of even greater advantage to the Nation should you serve as Vice 

President. 

The Commission is pleased by your interest in our comprehensive assessment of the government's 

public information dissemination laws, policies, programs, and practices. Incorporating the two 

additional assessments that you requested is quite feasible, and we are very pleased to be able to 

accommodate your request. 

The Commission is mindful of your recent endeavors to help mobilize and harness the advantages of 

the World Wide Web and the Internet to serve the American people. The recent interactive citizengovernment website that you have undertaken with Senator Thompson and your support for e-Gov 

legislation are important means of bringing government information and government services to the 

people. 

We will continue to stay in close contact with Kevin Landy of your staff to ensure that he is kept 

abreast of study plans and developments as they occur, and of course, we will review the findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations with him once they emerge. 

Sincerely yours, 

/signed/ 

Martha Gould 

NCLIS Chairperson 

 

287 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/liebresp.html and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen4.pdf. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-202 

cc: Senator John McCain 

OMB Director Jacob Lew 

Congressional Staff Liaisons for NCLIS Study 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-203 

APPENDIX 5. LETTER FROM NCLIS CHAIRPERSON MARTHA B. GOULD TO 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE NORMAN Y. MINETA, AUGUST 1, 2000 

United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

August 1, 2000 

The Honorable Norman Mineta 

Secretary of Commerce 

Department of Commerce 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 288 

First of all, let me congratulate you on your appointment as the new Secretary of Commerce. 

Undoubtedly the President can depend on your proven outstanding leadership abilities as a public 

administrator, sensitive to the needs of both the Congress and the Executive, to assist the 

Administration to accomplish its remaining goals and objectives. I'm also convinced that you will help 

to build a solid platform for the future. 

I am writing to alert you to a recently concluded study which the United States Commission on 

Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) completed in March of this year, dealing with the planned 

closure of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Your Department announced plans in 

August 1999, to close that agency down, and transfer its resources and programs to the Library of 

Congress. In our report to the President and the Congress (copy enclosed), we pointed out that the 

dramatic changes taking place in how, and at what cost, the general public is now able to far more 

easily and cost-effectively access the Federal Government's vast store of electronic information are not 

just scientific and technical information (STI) challenges. Rather, the STI challenges are, in reality, a 

part of the same broad set of issues and concerns with which the entire government is faced, for all 

kinds of data and information it makes publicly available and accessible. 

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, chaired by Senator John McCain, 

requested just such a follow-on study of broad reforms needed in the government's public information 

dissemination laws and programs, and requested my Commission to undertake the second study. The 

Committee requested that a final report be submitted by December 15, 2000. 

Many other Senate and House committees have also expressed an interest in seeing the results of the 

study. I have already alerted the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and 

the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the study, and wanted to alert you also 

as you take office. Details of our early planning can be viewed at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 

We are pleased that a high level former Department official participated actively in the earlier NTIS 

study to which I alluded above, and we would like to continue that kind of direct working relationship 

with the Department for the current study. To that end, we would welcome your designation of a 

 

288 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/mineta1.html and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen5.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-204 

liaison official with whom we can coordinate the study's planning, implementation, and the review of 

draft final reports. I would appreciate your furnishing me with the name and contact information for 

this individual at your earliest convenience. 

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter and, again, wish you success in your challenging 

endeavor! 

Sincerely yours, 

/signed/ 

Martha Gould 

Chairperson 

 

P.S. I know you attended the Washington, D.C. memorial service for Jeanne Hurley Simon, my 

predecessor as chair of NCLIS. I am sorry that I did not get the chance to meet you then. Jeanne was a 

strong supporter of broad public access to government information. I know she would be greatly 

pleased to see you take over the leadership at the Commerce Department (even though you're not from 

Chicago!) 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-205 

APPENDIX 6. REPLY FROM SECRETARY OF COMMERCE NORMAN Y. 

MINETA TO NCLIS CHAIRPERSON MARTHA B. GOULD, SEPTEMBER 1, 2000 

The Secretary of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20230 

Sep 1 2000 

Ms. Martha Gould 

Chairperson 

United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 200053552 

Dear Chairperson Gould: 289 

Thank you for your kind words on my appointment as Secretary of Commerce and for the copy of 

your Commission's report to the President and Congress – Preliminary Assessment of the Proposed 

Closure of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). 

I am pleased to designate Ms. Laureen Daly, Senior Advisor, Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, 

(202 482-6062, as the Commerce Department's Liaison to work with the Commission on its next 

study. 

I look forward to working with you on this project and on the broad reforms needed in the 

Government's public information dissemination laws and programs. 

Sincerely yours, 

/signed/ 

Norman Y. Mineta 

Congratulations on your becoming the Chair of NCLIS!290

 

289 Secretary Mineta's letter is available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/mineta.pdf (as a scanned image) and also at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen6.pdf (as an appendix to this report). 

290 This is the text of a hand written note at the end of the letter. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-206 

APPENDIX 7. LETTER FROM NCLIS CHAIRPERSON MARTHA B. GOULD TO 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE NORMAL Y. MINETA, OCTOBER 10, 2000 

United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

October 10, 2000 

The Honorable Norman Y. Mineta 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20230 

Dear Secretary Mineta: 291 

Thank you for your letter of September 1, 2000 in response to my correspondence describing the 

studies of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science aimed at updating and 

strengthening the government’s public information dissemination laws, policies, and programs, 

including the mission and programs of NTIS. You indicated that Ms. Laureen Daly, Senior Advisor, 

Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, would be the Department’s Liaison to work with the 

Commission on these studies. I am pleased that Ms. Daly will be meeting with the Commission’s 

deputy director and our project consultant next week. 

However, I want to take this opportunity to share my deep concern that NTIS is rapidly falling below 

the minimum satisfactory level of staffing needed to sustain it as an effective program to support 

federal R&D information dissemination to the public. In our report last March, we warned the 

President and the Congress this situation might occur if corrective actions were not taken. 

Specifically, we have learned from a number of federal agencies that the hiring freeze imposed on 

NTIS (despite the ability of that agency to compensate in part for the loss of key direct-hire 

professionals with contractor assistance) is being viewed with alarm; these agencies rely on NTIS to 

disseminate their scientific and technical information and they are fearful that the freeze’s continuation 

will adversely impact their missions. We also have evidence of increasing concern by the nation’s 

corporate and federal depository library communities—as well as private contractors—which heavily 

rely on the scientific and technical information products and services of NTIS. 

I think you will agree that, no matter where, ultimately, NTIS is located organizationally, its functions 

and operations must continue. We cannot afford to lose the skills and experience of key NTIS staff as 

personnel, uncertain of their agency’s future, seek opportunities in environments far less unsettled; yet 

if key staff do leave, we must insure adequate and speedy replacement. If you concur in that reasoning, 

would it not be prudent to bring the agency to the minimum satisfactory level of staffing and service? 

Wherever NTIS ends up, we should be confident that skilled workers, along with their equipment and 

real property, could then be transferred as a fully functioning operating entity. 

The alternative, it seems to me, will be the continued, gradual erosion of the agency’s capability, 

inevitably reaching a point where it will have become so dysfunctional that revitalizing it would be 

 

291 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/mineta2.html and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen7.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-207 

extremely daunting, if not impossible. Whether NTIS remains in Commerce or is transferred to 

another agency such as the Library of Congress as originally proposed, this situation would affect all 

of us concerned with the information handling capabilities of our government and our nation. 

I urge that you look into the matter and take swift action to remove the hiring restrictions before the 

situation becomes any more critical. 

Sincerely yours, 

/signed/ 

Martha Gould 

Chairperson 

cc: Laureen Daly 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-208 

APPENDIX 8. REPLY FROM SECRETARY OF COMMERCE NORMAN Y. 

MINETA TO CHAIRPERSON MARTHA B. GOULD, NOVEMBER 21, 2000 

The Secretary of Commerce 

Washington, DC 20230 

November 21, 2000 

Ms. Martha Gould 

Chairperson 

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 820 

Washington, DC 20005-3552 

Dear Ms. Gould292 [Martha]293

Thank you for your letter on the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and for sharing your 

concerns about NTIS’s hiring freeze. 

As you know, last year, NTIS was losing money and facing potential anti-deficiency. In order to 

restore solvency, the Commerce Department worked with NTIS to place 40 of its employees in other 

jobs in the Department, thereby enabling NTIS to cut costs and generate a modest surplus. This effort 

also is enabling NTIS to reconfigure the skills mix of its employees. Over the past year, we have 

carefully monitored the financial situation at NTIS, and in order to stabilize the situation, we have 

allowed the agency to hire the resources it required on a contract basis. Due to these cost-saving 

measures, NTIS has sufficient resources at this time to proceed with a small number of full-time hires 

in critical areas. We continue, however, to have concerns about the long-term viability of NTIS, which 

have been confirmed by a recent General Accounting Office report. 

I look forward to NCLIS’s Study of Public Information Dissemination Reforms. This is an important 

subject and deserves an in-depth examination. Technology is changing information dissemination and 

government institutions must reflect that change. I encourage you to take a broad look at reform and 

make recommendations that reflect present day realities and will carry us into the future. 

Sincerely yours, 

/signed/ 

Norman Y. Mineta 

 

292 Secretary Mineta's letter is available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/mineta11-00.pdf (as a scanned image) and also 

at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen8.pdf (as an appendix to this report). 

293 This is hand written over the salutation in the letter. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-209 

APPENDIX 9. NCLIS PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING THE COMPREHENSIVE 

ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION, JUNE 26, 2000 

NCLIS PRESS RELEASE 

United States National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 820 Washington, DC 20005-3552 

Phone: 202/606-9200 Fax: 202/606-9203 E-Mail: info@nclis.gov Web: www.nclis.gov

For Immediate Release For Information Contact 

June 26, 2000 Forest Woody Horton 

NCLIS LAUNCHES COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

POLICIES AND PRACTICES294

Washington, DC - The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) 

announces the launching of a major study to identify reforms necessary in the federal government's 

public information dissemination machinery. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, chaired by Senator John McCain, requested the study. Other Senate and House 

committees have expressed an interest in the matter. 

The comprehensive study grows directly out of earlier work done by NCLIS regarding the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS). In August 1999 the Department of Commerce announced plans 

to close NTIS and transfer its collections, functions, services and assets to the Library of Congress. 

Following the announcement, both the Science Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, as 

well as the Technology Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, held hearings on the 

subject. 

Subsequently, NCLIS held three public meetings involving over 100 individuals, representing a wide 

variety of interested groups. On March 16, 2000, the Commission submitted its "Preliminary 

Assessment" report to the President and Congress. That report was completed quickly because of the 

effects of uncertainty on the staffing and operation of NTIS. The NCLIS report recommended that 

NTIS be temporarily retained in the Department of Commerce at a minimal satisfactory level of 

service until the core issues could be studied more thoroughly by the Commission and an optimal 

permanent solution be developed. 

In the course of these efforts, it became apparent that the "NTIS matter" should not be addressed as an 

isolated event, that is, simply as a "routine" government reorganization in the scientific and technical 

information (STI) arena. Issues raised by the proposed actions with respect to NTIS are part of a 

framework of reforms needed in public information dissemination overall. 

The "Preliminary Assessment" report's recognition of the need to streamline and simplify the 

government's overall public information dissemination policies and practices was consistent with 

findings in an earlier Commission study, "Assessment of Electronic Government Information 

 

294 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/news/pr2000/assess1.html and at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen9.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-210 

Products," completed a year ago at the request of the Government Printing Office. The accelerating 

agency migration of governmental information products and services from paper-based formats to 

web-based and other electronic formats is principally driving this critical need for basic reforms. 

Additionally, there is the need to assess the economic equation resulting from the shift in the benefits 

and the burdens among the providers, intermediaries and users. The roles and responsibilities of the 

public and private sector need to be refined also. 

- 30 – 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-211 

APPENDIX 10. NCLIS PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INFORMATION, JUNE 29, 1990 

PREAMBLE295

From the birth of our nation, open and uninhibited access to public information has ensured good 

government and a free society. Public information helps to educate our people, stimulate our progress 

and solve our most complex economic, scientific and social problems. With the coming of the 

Information Age and its many new technologies, however, public information has expanded so 

quickly that basic principles regarding its creation, use and dissemination are in danger of being 

neglected and even forgotten. 

The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, therefore, reaffirms that the 

information policies of the U.S., government are based on the freedoms guaranteed by the 

Constitution, and on the recognition of public information as a national resource to be developed and 

preserved in the public interest. We define public information as information created, compiled 

and/or maintained by the Federal Government. We assert that public information is information owned 

by the people, held in trust by their government, and should be available to the people except where 

restricted by law. It is in this spirit of public ownership and public trust that we offer the following 

Principles of Public Information. 

PRINCIPLES 

1. The public has the right of access to public information. 

Government agencies should guarantee open, timely and uninhibited access to public 

information except where restricted by law. People should be able to access public 

information, regardless of its format, without any special training or expertise. 

2. The Federal Government should guarantee the integrity and preservation of public 

information, regardless of its format. 

By maintaining public information in the face of changing times and technologies, 

government agencies assure the government's accountability and the accessibility of 

the government's business to the public. 

3. The Federal Government should guarantee the dissemination, reproduction, and 

redistribution of public information. 

Any restriction of dissemination or any other function dealing with public information 

must be strictly defined by law. 

4. The Federal Government should safeguard the privacy of persons who use or request 

information, as well as persons about whom information exists in government records. 

 

295 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/info/pripubin.html and http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen10.pdf.
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1-212 

5. The Federal Government should ensure a wide diversity of sources of access, private as well as 

governmental, to public information. 

Although sources of access may change over time and because of advances in 

technology, government agencies have an obligation to the public to encourage 

diversity. 

6. The Federal Government should not allow cost to obstruct the people's access to public 

information. 

Costs incurred by creating, collecting and processing information for the government's 

own purposes should not be passed on to people who wish to utilize public 

information. 

7. The Federal Government should ensure that information about government information is 

easily available and in a single index accessible in a variety of formats. 

The government index of public information should be in addition to inventories of 

information kept within individual government agencies. 

8. The Federal Government should guarantee the public's access to public information, 

regardless of where they live and work, through national networks and programs like the 

Depository Library Program. 

Government agencies should periodically review such programs as well as the 

emerging technology to ensure that access to public information remains inexpensive 

and convenient to the public. 

CONCLUSION 

The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science offers these Principles of Public 

Information as a foundation for the decisions made throughout the Federal Government and the nation 

regarding issues of public information. We urge all branches of the Federal Government, state and 

local governments and the private sector to utilize these principles in the development of information 

policies and in the creation, use, dissemination and preservation of public information. We believe that 

in so acting, they will serve the best interests of the nation and the people in the Information Age. 

Adopted by the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

June 29, 1990 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-213 

VOLUME 2. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY PROPOSALS 

APPENDIX 11. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION RESOURCES REFORM ACT OF 

2001 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen11.pdf. 

APPENDIX 12. SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO THE PAPERWORK 

REDUCTION ACT AND OMB CIRCULAR A-130 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen12.pdf. 

VOLUME 3. SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCE MATERIALS 

APPENDIX 13. NCLIS STUDY PLAN OUTLINE 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen13.pdf. 

APPENDIX 14. SOME ISSUES/CONCERNS TO ADDRESS 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/concerns.html and 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen14.pdf. 

APPENDIX 15. SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION AGE PARADIGM 

SHIFTS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED MYTHS AND REALITIES 

Written by F. Woody Horton, NCLIS Consultant 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen15.pdf.

APPENDIX 16. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION LIFE CYCLE 

MANAGEMENT 

Written by F. Woody Horton, NCLIS Consultant 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen16.pdf. 

APPENDIX 17. AN INVITED RETROSPECTIVE APPRAISAL OF THE 1982 

NCLIS PUBLIC SECTOR/PRIVATE SECTOR TASK FORCE REPORT 

Written by Robert M. Hayes, Member, NCLIS Group of Experts 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/hayes.html and 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen17.pdf. 

APPENDIX 18. THE WORLD WIDE LIBRARY 

Written by Christopher Burns, Member, NCLIS Group of Experts 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen18.pdf.
1-214 

APPENDIX 19. FIRSTGOV: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 

Written by William H. Price, Member, NCLIS Group of Experts 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen19.pdf. 

APPENDIX 20. LINKING THE INFORMATION LIFE CYCLE CONCEPT WITH 

DIGITAL LIBRARIES 

Written by Satadip Dutta, Department of Computer Science, 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) 

Reviewed by Edward A. Fox and Shalin Urs 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen20.pdf.

APPENDIX 21. CREATING THE MAGIC OF INFORMATION 

Written by Paul G. Zurkowski 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen21.pdf. 

APPENDIX 22. STUDY PANELS AND GROUP OF EXPERTS MEMBERSHIPS 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen22.pdf. 

APPENDIX 23. PANEL ONE: FINAL REPORT ON A REFORMED NTIS 

BUSINESS MODEL FOR THE INTERNET AGE 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen23.pdf. 

APPENDIX 24. PANEL TWO: FINAL REPORT ON FEDERAL AGENCY 

NEEDS FOR CENTRAL INFORMATION SERVICES AND INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen24.pdf. 

APPENDIX 25. PANEL THREE: FINAL REPORT ON CITIZEN, BUSINESS, 

LOWER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, LIBRARY, AND OTHER NEEDS FOR 

PUBLIC INFORMATION PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen25.pdf. 

APPENDIX 26. PANEL FOUR: FINAL REPORT ON RENEWED AND 

STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE 

SECTORS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen26.pdf.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

1-215 

APPENDIX 27. SURVEY OF SELECTED FEDERAL AGENCY POLICIES, 

PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES RELATING TO PUBLIC INFORMATION 

DISSEMINATION 

Conducted by F. Woody Horton and Sarah T. Kadec, NCLIS Consultants 

Survey instrument available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/nclismsg.html. 

Complete appendix available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen27.pdf. 

APPENDIX 28. SURVEY OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION NEEDS OF 

DISABLED, DISADVANTAGED AND SPECIAL POPULATIONS (SUMMARY 

AND INDIVIDUAL ASSOCIATION RESPONSES) 

Conducted by F. Woody Horton and Sarah T. Kadec, NCLIS Consultants 

Survey instrument available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/special.html.

Complete appendix available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen28.pdf.

APPENDIX 29. PUBLIC INFORMATION RESOURCES MAPS 

Compiled by the Federal Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC) 

and the Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT) of the American 

Library Association (ALA). 

The public information resources maps are listed individually on the Commission 

website, under "4. Panel and Board of Experts Communications" at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 

Complete appendix available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen29.pdf.

APPENDIX 30. EUROPEAN COMMISSION GREEN PAPER ON PUBLIC 

SECTOR INFORMATION IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY 

Complete report available at 

http://europa.eu.int/ispo/docs/policy/docs/com(98)585/gp-intro.html. 

Excerpts included in this appendix available at 

http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen30.pdf. 

APPENDIX 31. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 

DISSEMINATION RESOURCES 

Compiled by Sarah T. Kadec and Barbara Whiteleather, NCLIS Consultants 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen31.pdf. 
1-216 

APPENDIX 32. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NATIONAL INFORMATION POLICIES 

Compiled by Toni Carbo, Dean, and Associates 

School of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen32.pdf. 

APPENDIX 33. INDEX TO A COMPILATION OF RECENT FEDERAL 

STATUTES PERTAINING TO PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

Compiled by Sarah T. Kadec, NCLIS Consultant 

Statutes Enacted During the 104th Through the 106th Congresses 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen33.pdf. 

The entire compilation is published in Appendix 35, which is Volume 4 of this 

report. 

APPENDIX 34. NCLIS COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT WEB PAGE 

CONTENTS 

A copy of the Assessment Web Page as of January 26, 2001 

(http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html). 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen34.pdf. 

VOLUME 4. COMPILATION OF RECENT FEDERAL STATUTES 

PERTAINING TO PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

APPENDIX 35. A COMPILATION OF RECENT FEDERAL STATUTES 

PERTAINING TO PUBLIC INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

Compiled by Sarah T. Kadec, NCLIS Consultant 

Statutes Enacted During the 104th Through the 106th Congresses 

This compilation updates a 1996 compilation by Jane Bortnick Griffith, Harold 

C. Relyea and Frances A. Bufalo of the Congressional Research Service. 

Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen35.pdf. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination is published in 4 volumes. 

Volume 1 is available in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol1.pdfand 

in print. It contains the executive summary, the report and Appendices 1 through 10. 

Volume 2 is available in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol2.pdf and 

in print. It contains Appendices 11 and 12, the Legislative and Regulatory Proposals. 

Volume 3 is available only in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol3.pdf. 

It contains Appendices 13 through 34, the Supplementary Reference Materials. 

Volume 4 is available only in electronic form at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.vol4.pdf. 

It contains Appendix 35, Compilation of Recent Statutes Relating to Public Information 

Dissemination. 

The Commission web page containing other documents related to A Comprehensive Assessment 

of Public Information Dissemination is at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.html. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005-3552 

Telephone: 202-606-9200, Fax: 202-606-9203; Web: www.nclis.gov