The Honorable Martha B. Gould, Chair
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820
Washington, D.C. 20005-3552

Dear Ms. Gould:

Thank you for the extended comment time. Even though I have been closely involved in efforts to craft federal government information solutions for more than a decade, I found the extensive nature of the report’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations difficult to evaluate for true impact. The Commission has obviously invested considerable time, energy, and research capacity in the report and proposed legislation. I offer my thanks and appreciation for the hard work!

However, I do have several issues of disagreement and concern. I strongly disagree that information dissemination is inherently an executive rather than a legislative function. Historically, the legislative branch of government has remained much closer to their communities, more mindful of the need for providing citizen access, and extremely responsive to requests for assistance – even from unaffiliated individual researchers.

Also, I did not find the state level discoveries in government information locator software and retrieval processes reflected in these proposals. First GOV, for example, could have benefited greatly by starting with the state-based experiences and building.

This report’s presentation of a role for the National Archives and Records Administration presumes that NARA has experience and expertise in real-time information service delivery. As one who is responsible for records and archives at the state level, I question that assumption. I also seriously question the way the report blends terms such as records, data, and public information resources.

This nation must have a global perspective. Much technical and scientific work is completed beyond our geographic boundaries. The global village concept, so common in our information management language, seems largely absent from the report’s NTIS discussion; although I am grateful for the clear support of NTIS function and robust survival.

Permanent public availability of electronic information is a much more immediate issue than the Commission report indicates. To assume usable files for 10 to 20 years is unwise and unproveable - - while immediate loss is demonstrated daily and three-year lifetime for technology is commonplace.

This nation has long taken the Federal Depository Library Program for granted. The changes the report envisions may well be necessary and crucial for our nation’s information health; however, to assume the ability of libraries across this nation to absorb the costs inherent in the stated conclusions is unfair.

I strongly commend you for the excellence of your report’s problem definition. Coordination and inter-operability between federal agencies and branches of government are fundamental to any true set of solutions. The need to relate and provide for all of our citizens is also crucial, and I was pleased to see the inclusion of a need to monitor the Rehabilitation Act and to continue to attack and overcome all barriers inherent in special population services. The significance of accurate, complete and authentic information availability to our research and development capacity sources is almost beyond quantification. The critical imperative to work across the broad range of available avenues such as OMB Circular 130 revisions and the reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act cannot be overemphasized. Thank you for so clearly highlighting all of these points.

In short, while I agree with your painstaking and thorough problem definition, I remain unconvinced of the efficacy of the report’s proposed solutions. You are correct that we need a “new vision.” I am not convinced we have yet articulated a realistic approach to making a new vision probable. Much of what the Commission defines as critical tasks are truly the most important, and the description reflects complete careful research. I am unconvinced, however, that new agencies will accomplish what we all believe is necessary. In addition, we must work toward and assure access to capture web-based information. Web pages are the current information dissemination mechanism – often replacing all others.

I believe the Commission’s strategic recommendations number 3 and 4, outlining a proposal for building in funding for information dissemination, are creative and refreshing. I sincerely wish you well in convincing Congress of their importance.

In conclusion, I am distressed by the report’s assumption that scarce Library Services and Technology Act funds would be sufficient for the training of information professions in manipulation and access of electronic government information, although such training is within the scope of the LSTA legislative purposes. The Commission must realize that only a massive increase in LSTA funds could empower this federal program to begin to address the training requirements outlined in your report.

I remain grateful for all of the effort demonstrated in the NCLIS report Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination. I thank you for the interest, caring and visibility the Commission has brought to the current problems with the federal government’s implementation of Title 44 requirement. Perhaps if we all continue to work together, an inclusive solution can be crafted. These are issues desperate for solutions.

Sincerely,

GladysAnn Wells, Director
Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records