In October, the Association for Research Libraries (ARL) released a statement on recent USGPO decisions concerning the Federal Depository Library Program (http://www.arl.org/news/pr/arl-fdlp12oct11.shtml).   Here are a few of the key passages from the press release:

“The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has released a statement calling upon the US Government Printing Office (GPO) to reverse its recent, troubling decisions concerning the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). ARL asked that GPO approve the University of Minnesota Libraries as the regional for the State of Michigan once it is designated by the relevant Senators, as well as approve and support the ASERL “Guidelines for Managing FDLP Collections in the Southeast Region.” Such actions are consistent with GPO past precedent and, importantly, comply with provisions in Title 44. These types of collaborations and cooperative efforts are essential to the success of the FDLP both now and in the future.   

ARL and its members have long-standing participation in and support for the FDLP, a partnership between the Federal Government and libraries throughout the United States that ensures the public has no-fee access to US government information. ARL members invest significant staff, financial resources, and space allocations to the Program with the belief that equitable access to information about our Government and its programs is central to our democracy. Recently, changes in policy and practice by GPO and its failure to embrace needed changes to the Program present serious challenges to the Program’s sustainability and viability. These changes will seriously impact the ability of the public to effectively access government information both now and in the future.

Decisions by the leadership of GPO over the last nine months call for costly changes in practice by federal depository libraries that are not supported by provisions in Title 44, the governing statute of the Program. In addition, GPO leadership has reinterpreted provisions in Title 44 and dismissed long-standing precedent concerning the designation of regional federal depository libraries to the Program. Finally, GPO has not acknowledged current library practice across all types of libraries and has not positioned the Program and its resources to reflect how users engage in digital discovery and access to information.”

In concert with this ARL statement, the CIC also sent a letter to the Public Printer of the United States and the Superintendent of Documents. 

Key Issues

So what really are the issues of concern here?  There is a growing sense among at least the ARL libraries that the current organization of the FDLP is unsustainable.  In the print based world, having a regional depository of printed material in the majority of US states was an effective way of ensuring that the citizens of our country would have ready access to government publications.  Today, more than 90% of federal documents are created in electronic form and freely available to the public via their own computer or one in a public library.  We no longer believe that a print depository in each or most states is necessary and, in fact, a focus on digitizing the legacy government documents collection would be a more efficient way to ensure that material is broadly available.  The CIC letter articulates it very well:

“There is simply too much redundancy of content and effort, and not enough attention being given to finding ways to harness the benefits of technology and digitally formatted information to create a more cost-effective, service-oriented structure.  In this age of electronic communication, there should be no doubt that satisfying ‘the public‘s right to know’ could be accomplished with far fewer than 1,200 Depository Libraries.”

Proposals such as the one from the University of Minnesota to become the regional depository for the state of Michigan head in the right direction – fewer print repositories for the legacy collection.  Rest assured we still need distributed print government document repositories; we just don’t need as many as we once did.  The Senators in Minnesota and Michigan have agreed to designate University of Minnesota as the regional depository, but the Government Printing Office has acted to usurp the authority of the Senators to make that designation.

What Does This Mean for Ohio State?

OSU is a depository library (one of the 1,200) but it is not Ohio’s regional depository; that role is played by the State Library of Ohio.  As a result, OSU can discard government documents that it no longer needs as long as it follows the procedures established by the State Library for that disposition.  So, while this does not have the same impact on us as it would if we were the regional depository, we are strongly supportive of the policy issues of concern to libraries in general. 

We concur with our colleagues that GPO is not open to retooling obsolete practices, or to cooperating with the library community.  Instead they are placing barriers in the way of progressive options which can overcome operational inertia and replace it with a more streamlined, technologically sophisticated, and service-oriented approach to distributing government information.

Other Issues of Concern about Government Information

Graham Walden has also alerted me to additional issues of concern related to longstanding federal publications that have not received funding in the US federal budget.  This from Graham: “The Census Bureau’s Statistical Compendia Branch will likely not be funded next year. The outcome of this will be the cessation of the Statistical Abstract of the United States—a staple resource for libraries for 130 years. Also endangered by the lack of Congressional funding will be the State and Metropolitan Area Data Book and the County and City Data Book. “

Clearly our country is faced with serious economic issues which can ripple concretely into our work life as well.  I think it will be interesting to see if a commercial publisher believes this information is valuable enough to collect and provide for a cost.