January 3, 2001

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:

The Chief Officers of State Library Agencies thank the National Commission for significant contributions to the critical debates concerning federal government information. We share your report’s concerns for permanent, no fee public access to federal information, and the government’s obligation to guarantee the authenticity and integrity of that information in a useable format in perpetuity. We appreciate the scope of the project NCLIS undertook and the manifestation of the Commission’s efforts and sincere interest in these areas of shared concerns. Much good work was accomplished by many good, caring, knowledgeable individuals during the Commission’s investigation.

We endorse the importance of adequate opportunity for full and robust discussion and thank you for extending the comment time frame. Furthermore, we urge you to encourage members of Congress to hold public hearings on these proposals. The magnitude of the changes you propose demand an extensive review by all stakeholders.

In reviewing the document, we would like to make five points:

1. The Digital Divide is alive and well.

As the recommendations in your report and the draft law are debated and discussed, we urge you to seek input from small and rural libraries and from tribal communities. We firmly believe that they will seriously question your optimistic conclusions about the digital divide being successfully addressed. Many areas of our nation and a vast number, perhaps majority, of our citizens do not possess the high speed/download/print off capacity necessary to truly use the electronic government information dissemination process the Commission’s report proposes. The ideal of electronic access bumps quite hard on the dirt of tribal, rural or inner city American roads.

2. Efficient access in all formats

All have paid for the creation of government information; all must have access in an appropriate format. The reality of have/have not; can/can not; and will/will not groups in our society must inform our decision process as we plan to provide access to the government information for which all have paid through taxes and fees. We believe that the majority of government information is in paper format and that a high percent will continue to be shared in paper. Since electronic archiving is uncertain at best, and electronic access uneven across our country, we urge you to reconsider your emphasis on electronic answers to all government information questions.

3. LSTA funds are insufficient

Current Library Services and Technology Act funds are insufficient for the training of information professions in manipulation and access of electronic government information. Only a massive increase in LSTA funds could empower this federal program to begin to address the training requirements outlined in your report. COSLA could not support making use of LSTA for this purpose a priority under current funding levels.

5. Proposed Law and NTIS

All of COSLA has not had a chance to review the proposed law. We hope to participate in additional discussions as the law is considered. We do hope that the complexity and substantial change proposed in the new law does not deflect discussion from the current issue of the continuation of NTIS.

We appreciate the inclusion of four of our colleagues in your process and we remain actively interested in your next steps and revisions.

Keith M. Fiels, President
Chief Officers of State Library Agencies