COLORADO/WY GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS INTEREST GROUP MEETING: AUGUST 18, 1993 ATTENDING: UC Boulder - Chairperson Tim Byrne, Lara Carter and Debby Hollis; Denver Public - Elena Wenzel; UW - Jan Jorgensen and McKinley Sielaff; UC Boulder Law - Jean Stefancic; Jefferson County - Sharon Partridge; DU - Tom Tyler and ?; Aurora - Margret Walther; Auraria - Louise Stwally; CSU - Fred Schmidt and Suzanne Taylor; Air Force Academy - Betty Fogler and Elfriede Jopp; Broomfield - Kelly Bradford. MINUTES: This meeting was scheduled as a forum to provide depository libraries with the opportunity to raise concerns and voice opinions regarding proposed changes in the depository program. MORNING SESSION Tim opened the meeting with an explanation as to why the Dupont Circle Group had formed: GODORT, the long-standing organization representing the interest of depository librarians, is tied down by the politics of ALA and does not have the freedom of expression afforded to a group such as the Dupont Circle. THE FOLLOWING IDEAS WERE CONTRIBUTED DURING AN OPEN DISCUSSION: Depositories need to look at materials being distributed and suggest low-usage items that could be eliminated. There is some question as to whether or not NTIS will be able to continue as an agency since it is suffering financial difficulties and distributing fewer publications. Looking to NTIS as the primary source for documents is not a good idea. Cutting out paper copies of the serial set as a depository item was a purposeful decision made by GPO to assure that depository libraries would react to the proposed budget cuts. CD-ROMs are being distributed without consideration for libraries who do not have funding to purchase the necessary hardware. However, CD-ROMs are the future trend and libraries WILL continue to receive this format, from the private sector as well as the federal government. Other format trends, such as microfiche, began with the government and created chaos when first introduced. Now all libraries provide the necessary equipment to use microfiche and accept it as a necessary part of library collections. Currently CD-ROMs are developed by individual agencies, so GPO can't be blamed for difficulties with using the products. GPO is the distributor not the designer of government CDs. A GAO report on the pricing of CD-ROMs indicates that GPO prices are lower than other sources. The idea of establishing super regionals could be workable. Why not consider parcelling out materials by subject area to develop a group of libraries serving as the super regional? The variability in the institutions receiving depository materials, as well as the subjectivity of the inspectors, incited GPO to change the method used for depository inspections to a pass or fail system. - Tim began going through the publication "Alternatives for Restructuring the Depository Library Program" (An-v14-#13-6/20/93). Comments: The depository system does not appear to be collapsing as stated. Recently we have witnessed the passage of the Gateway Bill and the publication of OMB Circular 130, political accomplishments designed to strengthen the depository system. The establishment of Super Regionals could be cost-effective since it would limit the number of full depositories. Running the depository program should not be GPO's responsibility. The delivery of services is not one of GPO's charges. If government information centers were disbanded the money could be applied to depository libraries instead. It may become necessary for the federal government to provide monetary support to Super Regionals. Regional libraries could contribute to the effectiveness of depository libraries by providing workshops, training sessions, and consultive services. Creating a new agency responsible for government publications and putting it in the executive branch rather than the legislative branch could be one way of providing that more attention be paid to depository concerns. Projected spending for the first part of the year was not as high as expected [due to the new administration]. USGS is planning on centralizing. Maps will be printed out when requested by customers (including libraries) who dial in. Continuing to break down item numbers so that selective depositories can deselect unwanted titles included on the same item number with desired titles. AFTERNOON SESSION Assumption 8 - Since in a democracy a non-partisan approach is needed, there would be an advantage to having OMB and DLP in the same branch of the government. The attitute of the past 12 years of charging for information (privatization) will continue for some time even in the new administration. Assumption 9 - no comment Assumption 10 - already true Alternative Scenarios A. ARL Model - applies more to libraries in general This group was NOT in agreement with the objectives and purpose of depository libraries as expressed in this model. It covers more general library services and collection development, but doesn't speak to the problems in the depository library program. If the intent is to mandate the size of selection for selectives, then this will not be accepted by the depository library community; each library needs the flexibility to select what it needs on an individual basis. This model does not make clear who would decide the level of services and what materials are contained in each level. It would seem like one would end up with poor service and probably not save money, anyway. Libraries at an intermediate level could be forced to select things they do not want. It would be useful to develop guidelines for libraries, for example, for medium academic libraries, small public libraries, etc. This scenario does would not help libraries who must meet the needs of congressional districts - there is no way to know the needs of any particular district - these needs will vary. Better solutions would be: 1 - break down item numbers more (get rid of dead item numbers and get rid of many numbers for items no longer sent through the depository program) 2 - leave the control in the hands of the libraries 3 - set guidelines for % selected, but libraries could choose within those guidelines - do not encourage libraries to select more than they want in order to get what they want. The group was stongly opposed to the ARL Model. B. Direct Support Model Set up a method for determining diminishing returns - ie. of selection of a particular item drops below a certain point, quit disseminating it and give libraries selecting that item a subsidy to buy it. Change the mandate of GPO - it could be the "Faxon" of gov. docs. A library tells them what it wants and GPO works with the agencies to get it. Certain items of low distribution could be coordinated with the agency for distribution. The point is to make libraries more responsible for what they select - scaling down would be easier if more item numbers were broken out. C. A National Collection of Last Resort would not be very useful - the National Archives are supposed to be doing this already. D. Super-Regionals This is a good idea. A super-regional would have to have a mandate to loan out materials. Ill would be required to go to its own super-regional before requesting a document from another library. This would release the regionals from keeping everything, but there would still be regionals. E. Electronic depositories or federal electronic distribution sites There would need to be basic material that would go to each library. Libraries would not be limited in what they could select althrough the group liked the idea of a center where there would be a consultant to help. Who would pay for the electronic depositories? F. Minimum technical guidelines This is not the problem it was when CDs first came out. Some pros and cons, but basically the group felt that this is not needed. G. Subject-based regionals This would be complicated procedurally. It is already possible within the system as it exists. H. Restructuring DLP Many of the assumptions in this model are no longer applicable. I. Rename the Program This is not an important consideration in light of the other scenarios/models. Depository library is a recognizable term and there might be a danger in changing it. J. Downsizing 1. Having libraries cut back in selection may be good, but mandating this is not necessary. Expanding item numbers, once again, would help libraries downsize without losing the selections they really want. 2. This group did not approve of eliminating selective housing. 3. This is not a good idea. It would have implications in regards to the mandate of the depository system. 4. No comment. ??