GPO Must Go
Mon, 06/07/2010 - 16:04
PrintThere are two things that Congress and Libraryland need to eliminate from their thinking before government information can truly move into the digital age. The first is the word “printing,” as in Government Printing Office (GPO). The second is the word “documents,” as in Superintendent of Documents (SuDoc), the branch of GPO that actually runs the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). Let me suggest that this is a case of the tail wagging the dog.
With something well north of 90% of depository “documents” now online, why are we still talking about printing and documents? Why, for that matter, are we still talking about depository libraries when they are far outnumbered by all the other libraries that have just as much access to government information as do the depositories?
In "Fixing the Federal Depository Library Program,” Patrick Ragains reviews two recent publications on the future of the FDLP. Ragains, GPO in its 2009 Federal Depository Library Program Strategic Plan, 2009–2014 (PDF), and Ithaka S+R’s Documents for a Digital Democracy: A Model for the Federal Depository Library Program in the 21st Century commissioned by the Association of Research Libraries and Chief Officers of State Library Agencies, all make numerous recommendations about the GPO/FDLP response to the digital age now upon us.
They all have it wrong.
In August 2005, I wrote "Documents to the People, Musings on the Past and Future of Government Information" for American Libraries magazine. As part of that article I suggested that there were close to 3,000 academic libraries not in the depository system, another 9,000 public library outlets in a similar situation, and somewhere over 90,000 school libraries in non-depository status. That is over 100,000 libraries in the country with electronic access to government information to which GPO, and seemingly the FDLP, pays no attention.
It is past time to move beyond the thoroughly outmoded structure that currently delivers government information to the nation at large. The GPO is an obsolete relic of a bygone age. The key agency is that of the office of Superintendent of Documents—although SuDoc badly needs a new home, a new name, and to be free of GPO. It has been quite clear for some time that SuDoc is moving, or at least has the potential to move, far beyond the boundaries placed upon it by the strictures of the depository law, and its position within the GPO. SuDoc is, or should be, about information dissemination, regardless of format. As such it is far more important to the country at large than its outmoded parent agency. SuDoc is, or should be, the Government Information Access Agency, working with all of Libraryland to make government information accessible to everybody, rather than just the 1,200 or so libraries still in the depository system. The FDLP has served the country well, but it is now outmoded and severely limits access to government information.
My recommendation to Congress is to take SuDoc out of the GPO, and give it a mission and the authority to deal with information as it exists in the 21st century instead of being bound to a law that was written in 1895. Congress is probably going to be unwilling to create another independent agency, so put SuDoc, or GIAA, or whatever name emerges, into the Institute of Museum and Library Services, or if Congress wishes to retain it in the legislative branch, into the Library of Congress, but in any case get it out of GPO. GPO will, inevitably, wither away; its time is past in any case.
Only when we remove “printing,” “documents,” and the present administrative structure from our thinking, both among the feds and librarians, are we truly going to be able to deliver government information to the people.
CHARLES SEAVEY teaches in the School of Information Resources and Library Science at the University of Arizona.
Trending Now
Current Issue
Noted and Quoted
American Libraries Magazine | 50 East Huron | Chicago, IL 60611 | 2012© American Library Association | Staff Login
Comments
The Mission of the GPO
I just read Mr. Seavey’s article on the necessity for reform in the Government Printing Office in the October issue of American Libraries. As a former GPO employee I can understand the frustration with how the agency is currently structured. However, I disagree with Mr. Seavey’s points that printing is an outmoded concept in light of their current electronic openness, that it’s no longer in the business of documents and perhaps that it should be folded in as a subcategory of the Library of Congress. Let me address each of these points.
Electronic vs. Printed
Yes, it’s true that most all government agencies have migrated to a digital document format. Most all of my time at the GPO was spent cataloging electronic documents to provide library catalog access to these electronic works for FDLP libraries. But printed documents were still very much important. Among the most important were military training manuals and the Federal Register. While both of these types of works are available online to some degree, their printed editions are necessary to retain as a contingency in case of failure of electronic systems. Technical manuals need to be available to train military personnel, sometimes in the field where there is limited access to electronics. In the event of massive electronic failure or cybercrime the printed copies of the Federal Register can help us pick up exactly where we left off in legislative sessions.
With the growing threat of cyberterrorism it’s more important than ever that we have access to printed editions of these documents so that we do not lose all of the valuable work that we have done to build this nation. That’s the main reason for the Federal Depository Library Program: retaining institutional memory.
The Business of Documents
As I mentioned the Printing Office is certainly still in the business of printing. But I don’t understand Seavey’s assertion that digital documents are somehow not documents. Any MLIS student who has read Suzanne Briet’s analysis of what is and isn’t a document can tell you that any information bearing thing, even unto living creatures and realia, is a document. The content of electronic documents, especially government documents, are identical to their printed counterpart. I know, because I cataloged both print and digital government documents on a daily basis for four years. There is nothing about their format that should ever exclude them from being considered a document.
The Missions of GPO and LOC
The Government Printing Office has always been the way for the average American to connect with government information. Whether through the document distribution program in the Pueblo, Colorado office, a Federal Depository Library or through their current online document distribution channel at www.gpo.gov. GPO helps inform the public about the work of our federal government. The Library of Congress on the other hand is a research library for the Congress itself. Though members of the public can use the resources available at the Library of Congress, its primary goal is inform Congress members on matters related to pending or proposing legislation. To fold one agency into the other is completely unnecessary, and blurs the importance of the roles of each agency.
Again, I agree that GPO does need to look at exploring its mission and vision, but I don’t believe that this can be accomplished simply through a name change or subordinating it to another legislative agency. From my time there I can tell you that GPO is on top of the electronic distribution of information, but it has also retained its commitment to ensuring the quality of physical collections in the FDLP Libraries. It is embracing the innovative and thinking critically about the future safety and preservation of electronic government documents, while also revisiting the traditional printed distribution programs.