[12474] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Move to Block Key Government Publications Reform
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vigdor Schreibman)
Tue Oct 6 20:06:49 1998
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 15:51:13 -0500
From: Vigdor Schreibman <fins98@worldnet.att.net>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
----------
FINS SPECIAL REPORT Octob=
er 6,
1998
---------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
--------------------
MOVE TO BLOCK KEY GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS REFORM
House Members Opposition Letter Going to Leaders
Washington, DC--Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX), is spearheading. =
=93strong
opposition to expedited consideration=94 in the US House of Represent=
atives of
Senate Bill 2288, the "Government Publications Reform Act of 1998." =
The
bill was approved Sept 28 by Senate Rules Committee and is headed for=
a last
chance showdown as Congress moves closer to adjournment this Friday, =
Oct 9.
In a letter addressed to Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader
Richard K. Armey, dated Sept 30, 1998, Rep. Sessions and a group -- w=
hat is
now estimated to be some forty other members of the House -- will urg=
e the
leaders =93to ensure that this legislation is not allowed to move for=
ward
without adequate consideration by appropriate [House] authorizing
committees.=94 FINS has obtained a draft copy of the letter, which=
is
expected to be finalized and delivered to the leaders, Wednesday morn=
ing Oct
6, according to staff of Rep. Sessions contacted by FINS.
Meanwhile, it now appears that the only way open for passage of t=
he
Senate Bill is by way of a rider to one of the remaining appropriatio=
ns
bills, which must be approved before Congress adjourns Oct 9. Sen. T=
ed
Stevens (R-AK), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, known t=
o be a
friend of libraries, is an expert in the tactic. If my memory serves =
me well
the tactic was
used to approve legislation that paved the way for the great Alaska o=
il boom
when authorization was given by Congress back in the early 1970s for
building the oil pipeline at Prudhoe Bay. A conference committee wou=
ld be
needed to reconcile differences between the Senate and House on the b=
ill.
The thrust of this opposition to S.2288, is that the bill does no=
t
adequately recognizes the technological wonders of recent vintage, fo=
r
example, as when Congress repealed the former Brooks Act, and thereby=
,
decentralized the procurement of technology to best assure fulfilling=
agency
missions. However, it is not the procurement of technology for agenc=
y
missions but the fulfillment of public information needs, which are a=
t issue
here, namely, making government publications freely available to the =
general
public. This public purpose is the lifeblood of democracy.
The two needs -- decentralized technology to serve agency missions=
versus
centralized information dissemination to serve an informed citizenry =
-- are
mutually exclusive. An analysis of the situation makes it evident th=
at the
best use of technology can be achieved by the new Government Publicat=
ions
Office at the
production stage, where agency documents can be captured for free pub=
lic
use, and through depository libraries at the dissemination stage, whe=
re all
Americans including the haves and the have-nots
can be assured free access. For such purpose, centralization is
obviously the optimum organizational form, utilizing experienced and =
well
trusted American public institutions.
For example, economies of scale make centralized telephone systems=
used
to convey information -- by voice, fax, and email -- the most efficie=
nt
users of technology, whereas a decentralized telephone system would
obviously be a total disaster. Similarly, centralized publishing is =
the
most efficient form for publishing government information. Indeed,
centralized publishing is mandatory for the purposes that are critica=
l to
American democracy, as historic experience has disclosed. This is cl=
early
evident with regard to:
(A) publication of government information at the lowest cost;
(B) capture of government publications produced by hundreds of
public agencies to assure free access by the general public; and
(C) correction of the wide spread problem of =93fugitive documen=
ts.=94
In the latter case agencies unlawfully convert public information to=
their
own use -- for revenue raising purposes -- while depriving
Americans of information about their government, which has already be=
en paid
for through their tax dollars!
Decentralization would, of course, place the information technolo=
gy
industry in an extraordinary position: converting the vast reserves o=
f
public information into a commodity for maximizing industry profit;
opening government agencies already bloated with equipment into a gig=
antic
new market for publishing equipment and supplies; and tranforming eve=
ry PC
user in government offices into a public policy policy making institu=
tion as
they all seek to exercise their greatly expanded publishing and
dissemination powers. The outcome of
such an organizational scheme would likely destroy the American gover=
nment
system.
Other than the assertion that centralization of procurement of tec=
hnology
is effective to best serve agency missions, which is not disputed, th=
e
argument put forward by the opponents of S.2288, is without logical f=
orce.
The blunt issue here, is one of recklessly serving the "bottom line" =
of the
few versus protecting free public access to government information fo=
r the
many.
Republican House members who offer a pretense of support for the =
goals
of S.2288, while acting in concert to block the essential legislative=
means
of fulfilling such goals, which are offered by this well crafted Sena=
te
Bill, must now assess the hypocrisy of their position. The people a=
re on
to this latest House Republican gag!
