White House Conference on Library and Information Services
Taskforce (WHCLIST) Conference
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to address the White House Conference on Library and Information Services Taskforce. First, I bring greetings from Jeanne Simon, Chairperson of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. She sends her regrets that she could not attend this meeting. On the other hand, I am delighted and honored to be asked to address WHCLIST in her place. I also must make the disclaimer that my remarks today are personal observations and conclusions.
In preparation for this address, I went back and reread Information 2000: Library and Information Services for the 21st Century, a Summary Report of the 1991 White House Conference on Library and Information Services. Very interesting reading, especially the petitions. Now I am about to say something that will surely get me in much trouble. The trend in government is for programs funded and operated at the state and local level. With this in mind, and after looking at the 95 resolutions and 9 petitions, my recommendation is; forget another White House Conference!
Does this mean you should pack up your tents and creep away into the night? Not on your life! We do need another national meeting, but we must start thinking out of the box in terms of a new structure and a new approach to address national policy issues impacting library and information services. Whatever the new structure is, and I will address this later, the content of any national meeting must be discussed as policy recommendations, not action or funding recommendations, because policy drives funding. Such a national meeting must address major trends in providing library and information services.
Aside from the cost of technology, a national meeting must acknowledge the need for continuing education of librarians, the current state of graduate library science education with graduate library schools becoming information or communication schools, the whole issue of information literacy and its impact on how library and information service is provided, copyright and intellectual property rights, telecommunication costs, permanent access, preservation, archiving, and the need to create means for evaluating and authenticating information found on the Internet. Look at policies in the context of real world events, not just in theoretical frameworks.
The recent tragedy in Littleton, Colorado will have an impact on the issue of children and young adults' use of the Internet. According to an article in The Washington Post, a Gallop poll indicated that 82% of those surveyed said the Internet was partly to blame for the shootings and 34% thought the Internet was one of the factors that deserved a great deal of blame.
Furthermore, according to the research firm Find/SVP, kids make up the fastest growing segment of Internet users. The first generation to grow up online is one of the biggest players in the worldwide computer network. Find/SVP spokeswoman Regina Lewis said, "AOL literally lights up after school."
We need to look at libraries in a global sense. At present, on the national level, we are looking at library organizations as vertical structures. In other words, we have library service to children, to individuals with disabilities, to Native Americans, schools, research libraries, academic libraries and so forth, each concerned with their own specific clientele and problems, and each operating and planning within their own specialty. There is little communication among the different types of libraries within the structure of ALA, and probably not a lot at the state or local level. If one goes back to the issues in Reinventing Government, then consolidation is an issue we cannot ignore, even though libraries have a variety of governance and funding structures.
However, with the incredible growth of the Internet, the lines among the different types of libraries have become blurred. There is a growing trend toward joint school and public libraries, academic and public libraries, academic and school libraries, sharing of facilities, staffs and services, inter-local government agreements, and so forth. A trend that does not have great support among librarians who are concerned with territorial imperatives, but a trend that has support from governing and funding authorities and from the public that uses and loves libraries, but also has concerns as to both spending and accountability for public dollars. Some examples of successful partnerships are school and public libraries in Reno, Nevada, and Scottsdale, Arizona, public and community college partnerships in Salt Lake City County Library System, and the Broward County Library in Florida and Houston, Texas. New Hampshire, Kentucky and Wisconsin also support-school public library partnerships. This, by the way, addresses recommendation IIIA (page 42), Support Collaboration at All Levels in the Community. Recommendation III D encourages partnerships at all levels (page 43), and III E (page 43), combining and sharing resources, part of the recommendations under Information Networks through Technology. While the January 1997 WHCLIST progress report, aside from technology issues, does not report much being achieved in this area, I suspect that more is being done than is realized.
Again, in looking at the 95 recommendations and 9 petitions, it is obvious that the last White House Conference addressed problems on an individual basis, addressing the parts instead of the whole, and defining the recommendations as action items. What the 1991 White House Conference did not do was address federal policy in terms of library and information services. There are also three recommendations for establishing federal government committees to do exactly what, by the law, is the mandate of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (I D page 35; II D page 38, IV A, page 45) and what the National Commission is currently doing.
Furthermore, we seem to have fallen in love with technology, from the President's initiative for wiring every classroom and library by 2000 to looking for federal funding for more and more technology in libraries. We also seem to have forgotten that the world is not wired, and many libraries cannot afford the ongoing costs of technology. Not just current operating costs, but the cost of planning and implementing new technologies, and the ongoing need for continuing education of staff and public. There seems to be a belief that if we can wire the world, that is all that has to be done. Not so.
At this point I want to speak about the mad dash for more and more technology and what I consider a dangerous trend to reallocate funding to pay for technology at the cost of traditional library services. It is not a question of books vs. bytes. If one looks at the mission of a library using both print and technology together is the answer. Users of reference and advisory library services benefit from direct personal contact from a librarian able to tailor services to people with special needs, preschoolers, seniors, minorities, and so forth. More importantly, both print and electronic resources are selected and organized by professionals. Not everything is available on the web or a CD, and there is always the issue of authenticity of the information on the web. For that matter, there is also the issue of authenticity of content in the books, perhaps even more so as the use of books is easier than the use of technology.
So, as library advocates who have spent personal time and money to keep alive the recommendations from the White House Conferences, where do you go from here?
In reading the summary of the meeting convened by Ann Simon at mid-winter in Philadelphia to investigate the possibility of either a third White House Conference or a National Forum, several issues come to the forefront. One was that NCLIS should learn, listen, and help. Another was the emphasis that advocacy should be on local issues. Well, I listened, I learned something, and now I am proposing what you can do to help achieve the impossible dream.
With this in mind I suggest that the first step toward some kind of a national meeting would be to build coalitions among the various library organizations, to be inclusive, not exclusive. We need to include special libraries, research libraries, academic libraries, law libraries, and medical libraries, along with school and public libraries. . . to come together to identify common issues and concerns. Then you must reach out to other national organizations such as those dealing with literacy, juvenile justice, early childhood education, and such groups that have not in the past been considered allies of libraries, such as Family Friendly Libraries and the Family Research Council.
You must work with COSLA, Urban Libraries Council, and Libraries for the Future as well as the various divisions of ALA to really find out what has been accomplished at the state and local levels with federal funds. And do not forget Friends of Libraries USA, as friends groups are a natural source of support.
The second step is to identify businesses, non-profit organizations, and government agencies that need information and use libraries to acquire such information. These can come from such organizations as the Council for State Governments, and the national associations of county managers and city managers.
Concurrent in identifying stakeholders in a national meeting on library and information issues would be an analysis of the 96 recommendations. Those that have been accomplished in whole or in part, and those that may never be accomplished. It would be interesting to identify the number of recommendations that start with "the President and Congress." Certainly COSLA would be invaluable in identifying from the state and local levels what has been accomplished state by state. Again, in reading your 1997 report on actions to implement the 96 recommendations and petitions, the report states that 87% have seen progress, 13% no progress. When you analyze progress recommendation by recommendation, one wonders how much really has been accomplished, or if the progress made would have happened without the recommendations from the second White House Conference. Who really has ownership of specific recommendations in terms of not only implementation but for continuing operation? Passage of a law by Congress is only a first step.
In my mind the most significant progress has been the e-rate and the passage of LSTA into the Museum and Library Services Act of 1996. This move by Congress to meld fiscal support of programs for libraries and museums under a new agency is important, as it reflects recognition of the need for cooperation, coordination, and consolidation among different entities. Would the e-rate and reauthorization of the former LSCA have happened without the recommendations from the 1991 White House Conference? That is a question that must be asked and honestly answered. In all the testimony on both the e-rate and reauthorization of LSCA, I cannot recall references to recommendations from the 1991 White House Conference.
I served on the reauthorization taskforce, and I do not recall any discussion of the recommendations from the White House Conference being addressed as support for reauthorization.
The National Commission is the appropriate entity to take the leadership role in terms of compiling and publishing a report to the President and Congress on what has been accomplished since the White House Conference in 1991. I think one could call this accountability for expenditure of federal dollars. Even more important would be to identify how the federal dollars have helped increase local and state support for library programs, especially those that were considered pilot programs. If one wants more federal dollars, then one must be able to show the positive use of such dollars and the return of expenditure in terms of increased service to the public. And this must be done in terms of library and information service policy issues. However, such a task demands both funding and staff. If the National Commission were to take on such a responsibility, then funding and staff become a budget consideration.
Another potential role for the National Commission would be to become the facilitator of a meeting of the various organizations concerned with library and information services, especially those outside the structure of ALA. The mission of such a meeting would be to identify common concerns and issues, place such into policy statements, and indicate who has responsibility for moving policy into action. Interestingly, the ALA has published what they consider a policy statement LIBRARIES an American Value. I would also point out that a statement in the first person smacks of being self-congratulatory, and that is not the purpose of a true policy statement.
I strongly believe that the National Commission is the one organization that could bring together various entities concerned about the future of libraries and information services. And, that is a recommendation I will bring back to the National Commission.
As for the National Commission and its role in some kind of a national forum, symposium, summit, or conference, we were the secretariat for the two White House Conferences, and we should continue to be the lead agency, especially if policy issues are addressed. Two things you can be assured of, funding from Congress for a third White House Conference organized the same as the first two will be difficult if not impossible, and would meet with resistance at the state and local level; and any participation by the National Commission must mean provision of both staff and funds. The National Commission is a micro-agency, clearly one of the smallest in the federal government, and we have only a modest budget.
Before I discuss possible structures for a national meeting--and I do believe we should have some kind of a national meeting, forum, summit or what ever-- I want to address the Benton Foundation Report, Buildings, books, and bytes: Libraries and communities in the digital age. Especially the conclusion that many Americans would just as soon turn their local libraries into museums and recruit retirees to staff them. According to the latest Bowker Annual, between 1980 and 1997 the number of public libraries in the United States increased from 8,717 to 9,767. In 1996, 65% of households used public library services. Of those, 82% had children under 18 and 54% had children over 18 years of age. In 1997, 1.6 billion items were circulated from public libraries, or 6.4 items per capita, and 7.9 million items loaned via interlibrary loan. Libraries are not about to dry up and blow away or be replaced by super bookstores. This also speaks to the issue of libraries being a national resource, of libraries being central to the learning process, and of the growing issue of information literacy.
I am not always sure that our national professional associations or private think-tanks understand what is happening west of the Mississippi to the Sierra Nevada. There are many creative approaches to library services at the grassroots level that are ignored by our professional associations. I told you that I would make comments that would get me in trouble, but, hopefully, would also make you think out of the box. Remember that one of the issues from the mid-winter meeting was advocacy at the local level. In looking at participant lists from other national symposiums or congresses, I am always fascinated by the lack of inclusion of librarians from the Mountain States, the Midwest, as well as from different types of libraries, or from small or rural libraries.
One suggested format for a national meeting is to make great use of technology, video teleconferencing, or going online via the Internet. Well, the world is not necessarily wired, teleconferencing is awkward, at best, and does not stimulate active discourse and discussion. It is also expensive with many logistical problems at the local level. Sometimes weather causes interesting problems in linking to the correct part of whatever communication satellite is being used for a teleconference. As for using the Internet, again, it is a question of access to the appropriate technology and the ability to use it. While I am not opposed to use of technology in libraries, technology exists only to help us do our job, it is not an end in itself. When the cost is greater than the benefit, its use must be questioned. Besides, there are many librarians that are technology impaired but still manage to provide incredible and excellent service. In fact, I am a perfect example of someone who is technology impaired (my former staff said that I had only to approach a computer for it to go into immediate meltdown). However, I still pioneered the development of a turnkey automated system, online catalogs and data bases first in my library and then statewide. Furthermore if we want to involve non-librarians in a national meeting, then using technology or the Internet could be limiting.
My suggestion is to hold a one-day White House National Forum or summit, preferably in the East Room of the White House. There have been several such one-day conferences or forums held at the White House, so you will not have to create a new structure but can build on what has been done successfully. Such a meeting should address how libraries have successfully implemented the Library Services and Technology Act funding. Highlight success stories from various states, showing how federal dollars have primed the pump for higher levels of local and state support. I suggest you address success stories using the e-rate to provide an information gateway to rural areas of the country. Lastly, I would have you emphasize the whole issue of literacy and information literacy. Such a national forum or summit should address policy issues and trends in library services. In other words, highlight what has been accomplished and frame what needs to be accomplished in terms of policy issues.
I also suggest you look at what has been successfully accomplished in terms of other national meetings, such as the Libraries for the Future's Communities and Libraries: a Dialogue and the ALA Congress on Professional Education, which is being held this weekend here in Washington. I do not know what national meetings the Urban Libraries Council or COSLA have held in the past, but certainly you need to work with both of these organizations.
Now that we have several possible formats, where do we go for the funding? First, examine how other one-day White House Conferences were funded as a precedent to build upon. Then think in terms of grant and corporate support. You must also think in terms of co-sponsorship with, perhaps, Libraries for the Future, Urban Libraries Council, FOLUSA, or even such entities as the Benton Foundation or the Kellogg Foundation. One format from the Philadelphia meeting that I suggest you not use is the National Issues Forum. It is time consuming and very staff intensive as it demands staff training, identification of issues, publication of materials, and organizing public meetings. Far better you design and provide programs that can be made available for annual state library conferences, or regional conferences.
Now that I have outlined possible structure and content for a national meeting, what about advocacy? In my forty-six years in the profession we always talk about advocacy, and we always seem to reinvent the wheel as to how to go about advocating for more support and more funding. Advocacy at the national level is vital, as shown by the number of library supporters here for Legislative Day. In terms of legislation that addresses information and library service issues, advocacy is most important at the grassroots level. ALA has a great advocacy program. I see as one thing WHCLIST can and should do, is to support ALA advocacy training working with state library associations, and calling on WHCLIST members to actively lobby in their own states and communities. We are always concerned with federal funding, and while federal funding is important, it is important only in that it can be used to prime the pump or as the carrot on the stick.
State and local funding is where we must place most of our efforts. Commissioner Bobby Roberts of Arkansas once stated that, "Funding from LSCA equaled one day of operating costs of the Central Arkansas Library System." When I retired from the Washoe County Library, LSCA funds were approximately 1% of the total library budget. Need I say more?
ALA and WHCLIST started the dialogue on the possibility of a national forum in place of a third White House Conference in Philadelphia. It is now up to you as the White House Conference on Libraries and Information Service Taskforce to make the decision as to format of a national meeting, and to work with the National Commission as well as other library and ancillary groups on content and funding.
Lastly, library and information services are being driven by change, change that is being driven in part by the rapid spread of technology. Unfortunately, change is often frightening, leading many to cling to the old and tired ways of doing. We no longer can afford to cling to old ways, as I said at the beginning of this speech, we must think out-of- the-box. At the same time I caution you to remember that the written word has been around for centuries, and the Internet will never take its place, technology and print have a symbiotic relationship. Whatever the final decision, I hope that you will remember the need to address the three "c's": cooperation, coordination, and collaboration.
I end many of my speeches with a favorite quote from The Prince by Machiavelli, " and let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as a leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new."
I commend you for your consistency and courage to carry on and monitor the implementation of the 1991 White House Conference recommendations. I also believe it is now time to change how you advocate and support our nations libraries. So I challenge you to think out of the box, work with both ALA and non-ALA library advocacy groups, directly interact with state library associations, look for non-federal funding, and reinvent your organization to be inclusive. It is your responsibility to speak, not for the profession, but for the users of library and information services. I thank you for inviting me to be here today, and I wish you success in your future activities.