GPO's Management of Federal Depository Library Program Faces Increasing Criticism
Rejection of Minnesota-Michigan multi-state plan called 'troubling' by ARL; 15 libraries lost so far in 2011 By Michael Kelley Oct 13, 2011(This story has updated from an earlier version to include comments from Mary Baish, the GPO's assistant public printer, superintendent of documents)
The Government Printing Office has rejected a proposed multi-state arrangement that would have allowed the University of Minnesota libraries (UMN) to act as the regional federal depository library for the 43 selective depository libraries in Michigan.
The rejection has drawn criticism from library officials in Michigan and Minnesota who say that the decision rests with their U.S. senators, not the GPO. The decision is also being criticized by the Association of Research Libraries as well as the heads of the seven multi-state regional systems that already exist, saying it raises concerns about the long-term direction of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP).
ARL calls decision "troubling"
"This is extremely unfortunate since we have no other solutions and none has been proposed by the GPO," Nancy Robertson, the Michigan state librarian, wrote on September 28 to Mary Baish, the GPO's assistant public printer, superintendent of documents, who administers the operations of the FDLP. "Clearly, we do not agree with the GPO decision .... This is not in the best interest of the FDLP or the State of Michigan," Robertson wrote.
Michigan has been without regional depository library services since October 3, leaving the state's selective depository libraries without collection development, reference and research services, and help with FDLP policies.
With the change in the past three months of the Library of Michigan and the University of Nevada, Reno to selective library status, as well as Wyoming's termination of their service agreement with the University of Colorado, Boulder in 2009, there are now three states without regional depositories.
The Association of Research Libraries sent a statement on Wednesday to William Boarman, the public printer, asking that the "troubling" decision be reversed.
"These types of collaborations and cooperative efforts are essential to the success of the FDLP both now and in the future," the statement reads. "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."
Baish said that she and Boarman were trying to seek a consensus in the community as they work toward a new national plan, and that while they welcomed ARL's voice, the ARL statement was divisive.
"We have to remember, and I'm not sure ARL always does, that there are other voices in the FDPL program," Baish told LJ. "And it includes many different types of libraries. It's a successful partnership with all these libraries that helps GPO meet its mission to all members of the American public," she said.
Baish said that GPO had heard from selective depository libraries in Michigan who had concerns that if this proposal were implemented, it would impede their access to collections and services.
The ARL is also calling on the GPO to approve the "Guidelines for Managing FDLP Collections in the Southeast Region," which is being proposed by the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries. The GPO has raised concerns about whether the guidelines would comply with the FDLP's legal requirements, particularly regarding the discard process.
ASERL has a petition seeking librarian support for its guidelines, but Baish said that the GPO cannot run the FDLP program by petition.
"I'm concerned that it will complicate our efforts to bring the community together for a civil discourse so we can reach as close as a consensus as we can," she said.
The GPO announced today that Boarman will address the Fall Depository Library Council Meeting and Federal Depository Library Conference on Monday, October 17, in Arlington, Virginia. Baish said this was the beginning of a dialog that GPO wants to have with every state.
In 2011, a loss of 15 federal depository libraries
The FDLP provides federal publications at no cost to designated depository libraries throughout the United States and its territories. These depository libraries, in turn, provide free local access to this information.
Before 1922, every depository library had to receive every publication from the United States government. Changes to Title 44, U.S.C. Chapter 19, in 1922 allowed libraries to become a "selective depository," where the library does not need to receive everything published by the United States; instead the library can "select" the publications they want.
Most states have one regional depository, and they can have two selective depositories per Congressional district. All together, as of September 30, there were 1,208 depository libraries, a loss of 15 libraries in 2011. In 2003, there were 53 regional federal depository libraries. Today, there are 47, according to ARL, including seven multi-state regionals.
The Library of Michigan, which has been a part of the Michigan Department of Education since 2009, has faced severe budget cuts the past few years, and its full-time staffing has shrunk from 50 in 2005 (when Robertson was appointed state librarian) to 30.
"We didn't get out of the business of being regional because it's not important," Robertson told LJ. "We can't afford it anymore," she said.
The UMN plan was a flexible option with precedent, Robertson said.
"I would have hoped by now that we would have the situation resolved," she said.
Even though disappointed that the multi-regional plan remains unresolved, Robertson was pleased that Michigan has managed to have its status changed to a selective library since this will cut down by about two-thirds the material it will receive and have to process.
"We just want to stop the influx of everything that is coming in and just get things that fit our mission," she told LJ.
A regional depository has to keep at least one copy of all government publications (which remain the property of the federal government) in either printed or microfacsimile form, creating significant duplication across the country. The Michigan collection is about two million documents, and only about one-third of them have been cataloged.
However, libraries without a regional cannot weed their physical collections or substitute depository material until a new regional library is in place.
Baish of GPO wrote to Robertson on September 15 that the UMN "proposal is not necessary for the economical or practical implementation of the FDLP." She also questioned whether the University of Minnesota could take on the added burden of the 43 Michigan libraries in addition to its present regional responsibilities for 23 selective depository libraries in Minnesota and nine in South Dakota.
"With no apparent increase in staffing, [this] is not an approach that appears to be sustainable in the future," Baish wrote to Robertson. "Additionally ...there does not appear to be, nor do you indicate that there will be, an increase in the budget for regional services at the University of Minnesota."
Robertson shot back: "To state the obvious, if Michigan had the resources for this function, we would not be asking for the UMN to take it over." She said officials at the Michigan Department of Education were "amazed that there are no federal dollars provided to a regional to cover the significant associated costs."
ARL was also concerned about the cost of unfunded mandates in an already constrained financial environment.
"In this difficult economic environment, it is too costly and not in the best interests of the public for GPO to change existing policies, and impose on federal depository libraries new unfunded mandates and requirements, especially without consultation," the ARL letter to Boarman reads.
Multi-state models defended as viable
Wendy Pradt Lougee, the university librarian in Minnesota, also wrote to Baish on September 28. She took exception to Baish's questioning of UMN's capabilities, calling it "ad hominem commentary." She only learned about Baish's decision through Robertson, she said.
"The discrediting of a regional library that has invested significantly over 100 plus years to ensure free and equal access to government information does not speak well for the Government Printing Office's support of depository libraries," Lougee wrote.
She noted that in California one regional depository library serves 82 selective depositories. In addition, she wrote that, in addition to UMN's "exceptional record of meeting statutory obligations," it has increased staffing in anticipation of serving Michigan.
"We did not take on the prospect of serving the state of Michigan lightly and recognize the commitment such a multi-state regional depository entails. The characterization of the University of Minnesota Libraries as not meeting the requirements of the program has no factual basis ...."
She also questioned GPO's own viability.
"I would suggest that the Government Printing Office cannot guarantee its own ability to
support the Federal Depository Library Program, as reflected in the recent appropriations bills that cut millions from the program."
"Multi-state regional depository models are not only viable, but may represent more sustainable future structures for the FDLP," Lougee told LJ. Like Robertson, she said there is ample precedent, dating to 1966, for such arrangements.
Dispute over who can designate a regional depository
Baish has asserted that the statutory language of Title 44 USC 1912 does not explicitly authorize multi-state regionals, and she said that such arrangements should be approved by the Joint Committee on Printing under the provision of 44 USC 1914.
Lougee, Robertson, and ARL all explicitly objected to this interpretation, saying it broke with the precedent that places regional library designations in the hands of U.S. senators.
"We urge you to reconsider your decision," Robertson wrote to Baish, saying they plan to appeal to senators from Minnesota and Michigan. Robertson told LJ she is hopeful the senators will send GPO a letter of designation.
"So much going on in Washington these days, but the request is in the queue," she said.
Baish took issue with the legal basis for the senatorial claim.
"That is their opinion," she said. "While I'm not an attorney, the designation of regional libraries is found in section 1912 and the statute is very clear that it is a state-based system. This means senators are only authorized to designate libraries in areas they serve."
In other words, a Michigan senator cannot designate a library in Minnesota as a regional depository library for Michigan.
"We explained that very early on," Baish said.
Robertson said that their expectation has been that any designation would come jointly from the four senators from both states together.
Baish's reasoning has also stirred concerns among the heads of the seven existing multi-state regional depository libraries (which serve a state or territory other than the state in which they are located). They serve nearly 18 percent of the 1208 federal depository libraries in the system.
In a joint August 29 letter to Baish, they endorsed the position that senators hold the right to designate regional depository libraries. They also expressed concern about "deviation" from past practice, writing that it raises serious concerns about their own status and causes confusion.
Baish said the core issue for Michigan is the lack of equal and equitable access for government publications, in part because of geographic distance that this arrangement would entail.
However, Lougee said that interlibrary loan and file sharing sites undercut such a concern. She also said that in 2010 the Library of Michigan had about 400 circulations or loans of government documents, which would only be a small portion of UMN's annual inter-library lending volume of 185,000.
"The impact would be de minimis," she wrote.
Baish also expressed concern that if the proposed arrangement were to end that the federal government would not be able to replace the materials that had been weeded from Michigan libraries. The material would be digitized as part of Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) scanning project and destroyed.
The ARL called on the GPO to recognize the growing role of digitized publications, which presently are not recognized as authentic and official.
"The public's growing preference for digital delivery of information, coupled with serious costs and constraints of library space, provide compelling motivation for the FDLP to proactively address discovery and delivery of the full corpus of depository publications in digital form ...," the statement reads.
Baish said that she is going to work hard to have an outcome-based discussion about the FDLP.
"We want to move forward and we need to bring the community to do that and recognize that everyone's voice is equal," she said.
