DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 281 552 IR 051 897

AUTHOR Higgins, Adrian T.TITLE Federal Information Policies: Their Implementation

and Implications for Information Access. A Summary ofthe Proceedings of the Annual Federal Library andInformation Center Committee Forum on FederalInformation Policies (3rd, Washington, DC, February12, 1986).

INSTITUTION Federal Library and Information Center Committee,Washington, DC.

SPONS AGENCY Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.PUB DATE 86NOTE 34p.; For the proceedings of the second forum, see ED

266 779. Videotapes of the entire forum have beenadded to the Library of Congress collections.

PUB TYPE Collected Works - Conference Proceedings (021) ==Viewpoints (120)

EDRS PRICE 14F01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Access to Information; *Federal Regulation;

*Government Publications; Information Dissemination;Information Retrieval; Information Sources;*Information Systems; Information Technology;*Policy; Technological Advancement; User Needs(Information)

IDENTIFIERS *Information Policy; MEDLARS; Office of Managementand Budget; Office of Technology Assessment; *OMBCircular A130

ABSTRACTThis Federal Library and Information Center Committee

(FLICC) Forum on Federal Information Policies focused on the impactof OMB (Office of Management and Budget) Circular A-130, whichrevises administration policy on information dissemination and theuse of automated systems by federal agencies. Introductory remarks byJames P. Riley, Rent A. Smith, and William J. Welsh were followed bythe keynote speech by George E. Brown, Jr., who opened the morningsession with a discussion of Circular A-130 and the transformation ofsociety through developments in the information field. Continuing thetheme of information policies and public access, the session includedspeeches on executive branch initiatives on policy informationFranklin S. Reeder), freedom of information concerns (Harold C.Relyea), the interests of the Office of Technology Assessment(Frederick W. Weingarten), and Circular A-130 and technology-basedissues (Thomas Giammo). The afternoon session, which focused on thetheme of federal electronic information systems and access, includeda description of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) automatedsystem, MEDLARS (Donald A. B. Lindberg), an explanation anddemonstration of the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, andRetrieval (EDGAR) system of the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) (Amy L. Goodman), a discussion of the impact of federalelectronic information systems (Robert Gellman), and statements aboutthe concerns of the information industry (David Y. Peyton) andinformation users (Eileen D. Cook). (X14)

Federal Library and Information Center Committee

THIRD ANNUAL FORUMFEDERAL INFORMATION

POLICIES:

TheirImplementation and

Implications forInformation Access

A Summary of ProceedingsPrepared

Adrian T. Higgins

Library of Congress

Washington 1986

In its tradition of providing lei. Jership when issuesaffecting:information policy emerge, FLICC spon-sored this third annual Forum on Federal Infor-mation Policies at the Library of Congress onFebruary 12; 1986;

As perhaps a measure tif the significance of theIssueS, FLICC Executive Director James P. Riley,in requesting that the forum be videotaped, saidthe discussions should be preserved as a historicrecord for future generations:

The Library of Congress has added the videotapeto its collections. The tape, "FLICC Forum:2-12-86" (Shelf nos. VBD 8807-8812), may beviewed by appointment, made a week in advance,in the Motion Picture, Broadcasting and RecordedSound Division, LM 336, in the Madison Build-ing of the Library of Congress.

Some two hundred federal library andinformation center -Managers, public and pri-vate librarianS, archivists; and other informa-tion specialists gathered February 12, 1986,at the Madison Building of the Library ofCongress for the third annual Forum on Fed-eral Inforthation Policies given by the FederalLibrary arid Information Center Committee.They heard from a diverse and articulategroup of information eXpertS, including rep-resentatives of Congress, the administration,and public and private sector informationusers.

The morning_ seSsion, introduced byFLICC Executive Director Jarnes P. Riley andKent A. Smith, Deputy Director of the Na-ticinal Library of Medicine, focused on the hit-pact of OMB Circular A---:130, which revisesadministration polity on information dis-semination in the electronic age;

The afternoon session featured a diStus-sion and demonstration of automated sys-tems already in use in the government;

Also taking part in the introduction, inhis capacity as acting chairman of FLICC, waSWilliam J; Welsh, The Deputy Librarian ofCongress. The forum was held at a timewhen the firSt round of cuts under theGramm-Rudrhan-Hollings Balanced BudgetAct Was on everyone's mind, including an$18 million reduction that threatened to irn-pair research services at the Library of Con-gress. WelSh teild the assembled federallibrarians that "we have got to rise AboVe thecurrent problems we all face and find a wayto make our work known to the Congressand to the nation." This symposium, he said,"gives us an opportunity to do that."The Keynoter

In introducing the first guest speaker ofthe day, Kent A; Smith noted the forum hadbeen Convened on Lincoln'S birthday andthat "in the spirit Of good old Honest Abe;"forum organierS hAd chosen a keynote

7

speaker of impeccable integrity: CaliforniaCongressman George E. Brown, Jr.

Brown was first elected to the U.S.House of Representatives in 1962; and as amember of both the Science and TechnologyCommittee and the Permanent Select Com-mittee on Intelligence, he has taken a keeninterest in furthering scientific research.

In his address, Brown welcomed OMBCircular A-130 as a badly needed statementof policy on how federal agencies shouldreact to the electronic age, but said it also con-tained a troubling provision that typified abroader government philosophy of withhold-ing information.

Brown set the tone for the session by tell-ing the audience that "we are seeing a trans-formation of an entire society as a result ofdevelopments in the information field."

He said efforts were made years ago tomold policy on scientific and technologi-cal issues within the executive branch; butthat function has since been "downgraded."(The Science Policy Act of 1976 installed apresidential advisor on federal science policybut the advisor has often found himselfthwarted by the competing interests of vari-ous federal agencies.) Consequently, the ad-ministration has been left with "a policyvacuum" until OMB Circular A-130 wasissued. Brown told the assembled federallibrarians that "you may be the nearest thingwe have to an institutional capability to lookbroadly at the problem."

He also criticized Congress, saying legis-lators have introduced many bills related toinformation issues (more than 280 since theNinety-Fifth Congress) and in doing so havefollowed an uncoordinated "piecemeal" ap-proach. "This rash of information systemsshould not be allowed to grow unsupervisedand uncontrolled," he said.

Brown argued that the OMB directive,while flawed, "should be welcomed andapplauded" for providing the policy direction

2 8

that in the past has been "sorely lacldng." HeSaid the final OMB circular, issued Decem-ber 12; 1985; contained significant improve=ments over a more controversial draftproposal released the previou-s March. "I ampleased to see that a number of changes havebeen made in the policy as a result of con=gressional and other concerns7includingthose of the FLICC Committee," he said.

Still, Brown said, the circular raised con-cerns about an undue restriction of public in-formation.

He said the government, through a num-ber -of laws, has attempted to control infor-mation release since World War II, and thecurrent administration continues in thatdirection. "Although Congress definitelyshares a responsibility for several unfortunatepOlicies regarding information dissemination,this administration has been particularlyenthusiastic in enforcing them."

Present laws effectively restrict the flowof information from government agenciesand allow the government "to confiscate ortry to control information that haS beengenerated by private citizen-S." Both condi-tiOnS "are seriously detrimental to our na-tional welfare in general, and to scientificprogress particularly."

He said that scientists who attempt tomeet with counterparts from abroadinclud-ing Eastern bloc nationsto discuss new re7search in certain fields run the risk of criminalsanctions for violating export regulations.

BrOWn said successive administrationshaVe failed to distinguish between highlytechnical data with direct military use andbasic science or theory. Further, the knoWl-edge that a certain technology exists is all theinforMation that other nations need todevelop the same technology. The Manhat-tan Project was one of the most tightly claSsi-fled projectS in U.S. history, he said, yet theSoviet Union developed its own atom bombjust five years after Hiroshima. He said the.

.1 9 3

only secret was whether it would work, and"we gave that away."

Similar efforts to shroud the develop-ment of the hydrogen bomb in secrecyproved equally fruitless, _he added.

Instead of making things difficult forforeign governments; attempts to controlaccess to information "may do more to hurtour own scientific innovation, development,and renewal," he said.

Brown said the OMB circular contains adisturbing provision that classifies as sensi-tive = and thus secretinformation whosedisclosure "could adversely affect the abilityof an agency to accomplish its mission."

"Former officials of the EPA believed thatinformation about their conduct of agencybusiness which revealed that some of themhad been engaged in activities later deter-mined to be illegal 'adversely affected' theirability to accomplish their missions," he said.The circular, he said, may contain controlsnot allowed by law.

Brown called to mind the views ofnineteenth-century political philosopher JohnStuart Mill, a champion of free speech. "Mill'sviewstill correct todaywas that we onlymake progress in scientific, moral; and otherareas of inquiry by having a marketplace offree ideas, where ideas can clash. Tha truthwill emerge, we will learn from one another,and intellectual and commercial progress willresult."

He said federal agendes control consider-able information that would give the public achance to assess the pefformance of thoseagencies. The provision in the circular givingagencies powers to withhold information thes-regard as "sensitive" should be opposed, hesaid; He u: ged forum rartidpants to speak upabout this and other related issues.

"A coordinated, well-thought7out infor-mation network, under reasonable policycontrols, will be the heartbeat of our societyfor generations to come," he said;

4 JjO

Information Policies and Public AccessSmith then introduced Robert Lee Char-

trand, Senior Specialist in Information Policyand Technology for the Congressional Re-search Service; Library of Congress. Char-trand is a leading figure in governmentinformation circles and has served as anadvisor in various levels and branches ofgovernment; as well as private industry.

Chartrand presided over the rest of themorning session and, commenting on FLICC'Swork, said the committee plays a critical rolein society that "simply cannot be overstated."The committee's annual forum, he said, wasone of the few stable mechanisms to addressinformation policies of the government;

Executive Branch InitiativesChartrand then introduced Franklin S.

Reeder; Deputy Chief of the InformationPolicy Branch of the Office of Informationand Regulatory Affairs, Office of Manage-ment and Budget. Reeder spoke about execu-tive branch initiatives on policy information,particularly as articulated in Circular A-130.

Reeder worked closely with colleague J.Timothy Sprehe, a policy analyst in OMB'sOffice of Information and Regulatory Affairs,in writing the OMB circular, and, as if toacknowledge its unpopularity in some quar-ters, began his address by joldng that he was"delighted to be here to see so many familiarfaces, and even some friends."

He focused his address on the history ofthe circular and the concepts and principlesthat underpin it.

He said the circular was "not an incon-siderable accomplishment" and that its devel-opment as a policy document on govermnentinformation "would not have occurred with-out the physical and intellectual disciplineTim brought to the process."

The circular grew out of the 1980 Paper-work Reduction Act and an initiative from

iU 5

the Assistant Secretaries for Management offederal departments to examine previouspolicy directives addressing governmentinformation, he said.

The 1980 act directs government agenciesto be efficient, effective, and economic intheir handling of information.

Reeder said OMB first announced in 1983that it intended to develop a circular address-ing information policy, and in March 1985 itissued the first draft. "We were really deal-ing with two very different problems," hesaid. One was the management of resourcesused to produce information, including com-puter equipment; the second was themanagement of the information itself.

"Several points, we thought, were ratherimportant," he said. The first considerationwas that information is a resource and hasthe same characteristics as other economicresources: cost of production, value to users,and a market for it. Another factor, he said,was that information has its own life cycle.The circular also acknowledged "a funda-mental difference" between access to infor-mation and dissemination of it, Reeder said.

Access, essentially a passive act, meansmaking information that belongs to the gov-ernment available to the public and othergovernment agencies, he explained. Dis-semination, in contrast, requires activelydistributing information.

He noted statutes like the Freedom of In-formation Act and the Privacy Act require therelease of information, as do legally man-dated agency programs. "A-130 does notcontradict these obligations," he said.

What it does do, he said, is recognize thatscarce government resources are used to dis-tribute information "and there needs to berational decisions for determining when andhow that information ought to bedisseminated."

The Internal Revenue Service must givethe public information on how to file tax

6 1 2

returns for the efficiency of the agency, forexample, said Reeder, but to what degreeshould the agency help individuals in prepar-ing returns?

Reeder acknowledged that the draft cir-cular "created a great deal of consternation."It contained sections that were ambiguousand led to misunderstandings; in addition,"there were some serious gaps."

Still, an underlying principle remained,he said, that OMB had to take into accountthe extent the private sector could or alreadywas providing information service that dupli-cated. an agency's requirements. "What weare saying, in essence, is that governmentprobably ought not to be in the newspaperbusiness " he said.

OMB amended the circular after receiv-ing comments on it from others. The direc-tive was changed to include a reminder toagencies that they are obliged to make theirpublications available through the FederalDepository Library System. Also, govern-ment agencies must give public notice if theyplan to end or substantially modify significant information dissemination activities.

That warning, Reeder said, will givethose affected a chance to lobby againstchanges or will "energize" the private sectorto fill the vacuum.

New initiatives by the government to cutspending to reduce the budget deficit bringa new urgency to the issue of relying moreon the private sector for information services.

Freedom of Information ConcernsChartrand next introduced _Congres-

sional Research Service colleague Dr. HaroldC. Relyea, CRS Specialist in American Na-tional Government. Relyea is also an author,lecturer, and advisor on freedom of informa-tion matters.

Relyea told the audience that the OMBcircular was the latest in a series of clashesbetween Congress and the executive branch

_

13 7

since the Freedom of Information Act wasadopted almost twenty years ago.

The electronic age, he added, presentsthe government with a chance to give thepublic better access to information, yet thenew OMB circular raises concerns that tech-nology will be used to restrict it.

Relyea, an acknowledged expert on free-dom of information issues, began WS addressby noting wryly mat he last came to theMumford Room for a forum on GeorgeOrwell.

"Information is the currency of democ-racy," he said. James Madison saw thisclearly, Relyea noted, and Madison told hiscontemporaries that "knowledge will forevergovern ignorance, and people who mean tobe their own governors must arm themselveswith the power which knowledge gives."

Relyea said the United States set anexample to the world when, in 1966, itenacted the Freedom of Information Act, giv-ing citizens a presumptive right to govern-ment-held information, listing specificexemptions, and a procedure allowing thejudiciary to adjudicate disputes over access.

Today, a dozen nations have similarlawslegislation that stands as a symbol ofopen government and, as important, aneffective way of getting information that isheld by the government.

In practically all of the nations with FOIacts, he said, there has been a clash betweenlawmakers and the bureaucracy over theenactment and administration of thelegislation.

He quoted sociologist Max Weber, whosaid that "every bureaucracy seeks to increasethe superiority of the professionally informedby keeping their knowledge and intentionssecret."

"For almost two decades," noted Relyea,"members of Congress have experiencedsomething less than enthusiasm for the FOIAct on the part of the executive branch."

8 4

For example:O No agency supported the legislation

when it was first considered by Congress.O The president was a reluctant

signatory to the law.O The attorney general issued a biased in=

terpretation "against the true spirit of the law."O Government departments failed to

follow seriously the law's requirements bynot devoting adequate resources to itsadministration.

When the law was overhauled in 1974;agencies withheld their support for thereform measure and the president tried toveto it. Two years earlier, a House oversightreport concluded that "the effident operationof the Freedom of Information Act has beenhindered by five years of foot-dragging bythe federal bureaucracy."

As a result, Congress has become sensi-tive to "if not suspicious of" administra-tion efforts to modify the FOI law.

That is not to say that members of Con-gress do not support refinements in the law:legislators are moving to update the basicnuts and bolts of the legislation as well asaddress the implications of the electronic ageregarding it, Relyea said.

Among improvements in the law thatCongress is now exploring are different re-quester fees, strengthened fee waiver start;dards, increased security of law enforcementfiles, increased sanctions for arbitrary andcapricious record withholding, and changesin response deadlines.

Congress is also interested in the impactof _computers and other technology on theFOI Act. Despite significant capital costs,computer systems promise greater efficiency,greater agency compliance with the Spirit ofthe law, and "an opportunity to expand theavailability of information and to make itmore useful," he said.

But Congress is also concerned that infor=mation stored electronically may be less

accessible, and the new OMB circular raises"some new concerns about agency informa-tion collection, maintenance and dissemina-tion practices," Relyea said.

"The circular has a significant bearingupon the FOI Act because it may be a meansfor determining the kinds of information thatthe agencies can possess and also themedium in which it shall be collected, main-tained and disseminated."

OMB will have to convince Congress thatthe directive does not counter the FOI Act,he said. It could have that effect, he argued,if agencies must comply rigidly with the cir-cular's requirement that they only generateinformation necessary to perform their mis-sion. Apart from the FOI Act, the computerage raises additional concerns about govern-ment information policies, including theimpact on libraries and archives, if the gov-ernment turns to replacing paper documentswith electronically stored material.

Relyea also warned that, in the age ofgovernment austerity, "freedom of in-formation might be sacrificed in the holycause of efficiency, economy, and budgetbalance."

He said the cost of administering the FOIAct is around $50 itüllion a year"con-siderably less than the cost of governmentpublic relations and self-promotion pro-grams," which cost an estimated $1 billion.

"It is less expensive to provide the publicwith the information it seeks than it is for thedepartments and agencies to dispense whatthey determine people should know," hesaid .

In many ways, he said, the FOI Act "sus-tains our form of government and helps thecitizenry to keep it."

Office of Technology Assessment Interests

Chartrand next introduced Frederick W.Weingarten, Program Manager of Communi-cation and Information Technologies at the

10 6

Office of Technology Assessment. The officeprepares detailed studies for Congress, andChartrand noted that Weingarten hasauthored several important studies on theeffects of technology on society.

Weingarten said new technology hasthrown out of balance traditional policiesdealing with government-held information,and society has to make a fundamentalreassessment of "what we want out of thistechnology and our government."

His agency is small, relatively young,and one of four analytical support agenciesof Congress. It examines how changes intechnology affect the kinds of policy deci-sions made by Congress.

This is done primarily through detailed,lengthy studies that typically take a four-member team working with consultants twoto three years to produce. OTA, he said, wasabout to release two reports dealing with in:-formation policiesone on government infor-mation technology and a second reevaluatingthe nation's copyright laws. In its work, OTAlooks at three areas governing information:basic policy, the issues surrounding the useof government information, and technicalissues ranging from compatibility betweenvarious computer systems to the effects ofcathode ray tubes at the workplace.

He said there are four "clusters of values"affecting government information policy. Thefirst is that information is a public good andthat the free flow of information is essentialto maintain a democracy. Second, informa-tion is an increasingly valuable commodity.Third, government must secure certain filesto protect an individual's privacy. Fourth, lawenforcement and national defense agenciesmust gather information to protect citizens.

Often the interests of one value systemconflict with another for example, FirstAmendment rights versus national securityneedsand so public information issues"must lie as tensions along or between those

17i 11

points," said Weingarten. What new tech-nology has done, he argued, "has thrownthose balances out of whack."

The government must look at a numberof consequential questions, includingwhether the private sector can disseminateinformation better and what the broad civilliberties issues are. "Technology is upsettingpower balances between government, largeorganizations, and individuals. They need tobe assessed and restruck," he said. Protec-tions from illegal wiretapping for example,have been overtaken by advances in wiretap-ping technology.

Federal agencies have to understand theimportance of what is happening. "Informa-tion is becoming as essential an infrastruc=ture in our society as the railroads were inthe previous century," he said. "If that asser-tion is true," he argued, "it means that howwe develop this infrastructure, the policieswe set for its development, will have as muchirnpact on our economic and social strengthas a nation in the next century as the railroadsin the previous century."

Yet, he suggested, efforts to addressthese fundamental questions are presentlyscant and uncoordinated.

The issues will not be resolved satisfac-torily, he said, "until we understand muchbetter what we want out of this technologyand our government and how those impor-tant balances are to be struck."

Technology Based Issues

The last speaker of the morning wasThomas Giammo, Associate Director of theGeneral Accounting Office's InformationManagement and Technology Division.

Giammo agreed with Weingarten thatthe issue goes deeper than the question ofhow to deal with computerized documents.Rather, he said, the debate should boil downto the fundamental issue of access to govern-ment information.

143)12

(Giammo said GAO, an investigativeagency for Congress, "speaks when it isspoken to" and that his views were his own,and not the agency's.)

He welcomed the OMB circular as apolicy document, but said it embraced theshortcomings of previous directives. Hisremarks were doininated by a highly criticalaccount of what had happened at the Patentand Trademark Office. The PTO's switch toelectronk files had been done by the letterof the law, but the result, Giainmo said, wasa "monster" that denied meaningful elec-tronic information to the public while givingselected companies that computerized thefiles a virtual monopoly to market the infor-mation.

Giammo told the forum participants that"we do ourselves and the country a disser-vice" by regarding the advent of computer-ized documentation as a technological issue.

"Information technology is providingnew contexts in which old policy has toapply," he said.

The new technology has changed "all thetacit assumptions" of government informa-tion, he said, including the presumption untilnow that documents come in one form onpaper.

Like others who criticized specific provi-sions in the OMB diredive, Giammo said Citccular A-130 itself was "overdue for manyyears." He espedally congratulated A-130'sauthors for their inclusion of Appendix IV,which gives an analysis for the underpinningof the policy. Appendix IV provides a "terse"rationale that in most cases makes it clearwhat the intent of the policy is. "It also makesit easy to pick flaws in it," he said, drawinga chuckle from the audience.

He added, however, that the fact thedocument was needed showed a failure ofsorts. "The need for such policy arises," hesaid, "when it is not clear how basic prin-ciples apply." t

fcb; 13

In A-130, for exarnple, OMB based itspolicy regarding user fees on an earlier cir-cular-A-25. Yet A-25 was written before thedawn of the technological age; it addressesthe economic value of government-ownedproperty and not its intrinsic worth, and hasin mind such commodities as rights to cuttimber on federal land, and patent grants.

A-130 contains several other majorflaws, he argued. First, it fails to make thekey distinction between the form and con-tent of information, even though electronicinformation can be much more useful thanpaper documents. That policy weakness,found also in the Freedom of InformationAct, "makes difficult one's access to certainkinds of information that otherwiE,e wouldbe much more easy to obtain," he said.

Second, the circular "makes worse a verynarrowly construed obligation" of the federalgovernment to disseminate information, hesaid. "My reading of it [is that it] actuallyforbids the voluntary dissemination of infor-mation by some agencies under certain cir-cumstances."

Third, A-130 has an overly broad ban onpublic agencies repeating private sector infor-mation services. "They have an absoluteprohibition-not just in those cases where abetter means of dissemination occurs," hesaid. And when it comes to an agency pro-viding information, the circular perpetuatesrather than clears up confusion over usercharges, he added.

Giammo said when GAO audited thePatent and Trademark Office, it found thatthere were major problems with the agency'sconversion to electronic file keeping, but thatthose problems were created by reliance onpolicy weaknesses found in such earlierguidelines as the Freedom of Information Actand A-25.

He said there was never a question thatPTO managers acted in good faith. "The

14

question was whether what they did wasgood-, or not good," he said.

As technology became available, PTOdecided to automate its files as part of agovernment_mandate for an efficient, effectiVeoperation. But, Giammo noted, the agencydecided that if a small group of private firmswould computerize the ffies, PTO would givethem exclusive rights to market the informa-tion without competition from the agency. Inthe end, PTO crippled us software so that thepublic could not gain any advantage in readingelectronic documents, and decided to resist allFreedom of Information Ad requests for docu-ments in electronic form; The agency alsocharged anyone who wanted a computer tapeof filings $40,000 per copy-seven times whatit had charged before.

How could this happen? First, CircularA-25 calls for agencies to price government-held property-in this case information-at itsmarket vthue, not at its cost-, he said. Second,the Freedom of Information Act fails to spellout the form released information must take.

Giammo said PTO officials allowed oneelement of bad policy o work in conjunctionwith another bad policy to create "one horri-ble example" of how things can go wrong.They used the Freedom of Information Actto furnish the public with inferior informa-tion and Circular A-25 to charge prohibitivelyexpensive fees that perpetuated the privatevendors' monopoly, he said.

There was "a plausibility" to the agency'sarguments, he added, but "the result is amonster;"

The new OMB directive leaves intact therationale PTO followed, Giammo argued."All those pillars . . . remain standing underA-130;"

Federal Electronic Information Systemsand Access

Kent A. Smith, who presided over theafternoon's panel of speakers, said that as

15

government policy makers began to look atelectronic filing systezns, it became apparentthat collecting information was just "one sideof the equation." The other elementdisseminationgenerated additional ques-tions, Smith said. Ensuring public access toinformation "is an important goal to all of us,but I suspect we may debate the methods toachieve it," he said.

Forum organizers hoped that "by bring-ing concerns into the open, we may be ableto develop some answers, or at least comeaway with a better understanding" of theissues, Smith added.

He then introduced his "boss"NationalLibrary of Medicine Director Dr. Donald A.B.Lindberg.

NLM MEDLARS System

Forum participants had earlier heard ofthe great capabilities and benefits of elec-tronic information systems, but only in anabstract sense. In describing the NationalLibrary of Medicine's MEDULVRS system,director Lindberg gave the audience specificexamples of how his automated library canhelp doctors faced with life-or-death deci-sions, aid cleanup crews protecting com-munities from cheznkal spills,. or assist in thefledgling science of DNA research.

But to protect the value of the library,Lindberg argued, you have to assure theaccuracy of its data, and that may not bepossible if portions of the system are turnedover to private sector control.

The NLM traces its roots back to 1836 anda shelf of medical books in the Office of theSurgeon General of the Army, Lindberg said.Today, it is "by far the biggest biomedicallibrary in the world," he said.

Lindberg's predecessors began their ef-forts to computerize the library in 1960. It wasnot an easy taskin the age of computers,"1960 was reasonably early"but by 1%4 theNLM's first computer-generated library index

16

was available. Two decades ago, computer-ized Searches for information in theMEDLARS systeM took "a couple of weeks,"Lindberg noted.

Today MEDULRS gets 3 million inquiriesa year and can handle requeStS from 190users at once. Half the ihquiries have to dowith patient care, he said;

Of the 50000 periodicals in the literatUreof medicine; approximately 3,200 ate used inthe NLM electronic syStem. MEDEIVRS con-sists of 30 data base sySterhs, from jourral arti=de references to fi les on chemistry, twdcology,and cancer research and treatirient.

He said he was partichlarly proud of thelibrary's toxicology data base, which wasestablished in the late 1960s with the help Ofthe Food and DnIg Administraticin, the Cen-ters for Disease Control, and, in the past fiveyears, the Environmehtal Protection A3encyand its Superfund program.

The system allows experts dealing withhazardous chemical spills to call the com-puter from the accideht Site and get informa-tion on how best to handle a disaster.

Trucks crash daily on the Capitol beltwayringing Washington, D.C., kir eXainple."Sometimes they have innticuous substancesin them, somethries they don't," he said.Such accidents happen all over the country,he added.

By reaching the NLMcomputer., expertsat chemical spill inddents can pinpoint whichchemkals they are dealing with (800,000chemical names are understciod by the sys-tem). The accident worketS Carl also learn thecharacteristics of a chemical whether itsfumes are heavier or lighter thart air, fritexample and determine what WoUld hap-pen if it is mixed with ahother Substance; Thecomputer, Lirtdb&g Said, can provide infor-mation on how best to neutralize or reitiOvetoxk chertikals and can help the human ex-pert decide whether nearby communitiesneed to be evacuated.

17

"It'S all very real," he said. "That's aclassic area where it's tmreasonable to expectpnvate companies to develop these databases. Either it's done by a public agency orit isn't going to be done," hc said.

Refening to the OMB circular, he said theworst parts were removed in the final ver-sion, and he noted that the circular's policythat user fees be based on the marginal costof accessing the Mformation was "quitesensible that's how MT services are priced."

He questioned the wisdom of turningcontrol of certain information services overto profit-making firms, however.

"I have to question if it is in society's bestinterests if information on drag effects, drugside effects [oil drug reactions must be soldto the highest bidder [and] denied to a patientwho has run out of insurance," he said.

NLM's files are available to governmentagencies, universities, and private com-panies, but the data bases are still controlledby NLM. If that were lost, there are no guar-antees that all informafion vendors wouldhave the resources to make sure the infor-mation is corrected oi updated, he said.Typographical errors could lead to patientsgetting the wrong, and possibly lethal, dosesof medicine.

If the electronic library systems are notproperly funded and care is not taken inquality control, "patients will pay the realprice," he said.

The SEC's Experience with EDGARFollowing Lindberg's speech, Smith in-

troduced Amy L. Goodman, Associate Direc-tor, EDGAR, Division of CorporationFinance, Securities and Exchange Com-mission.

The commission was one of the first fed-eral agencies to experiment with an electronicinformation system, and Goodman providedboth an explanation and demonstration ofwhat the commission's system could do.

18

For the Securities and Exchange Com-mission, its 'Electronic Data Gathering;Analysis, and Retrieval System (EDGAR) willgive the agency an important tool in falfill=ing one of its primary missionsto providecorporate information to investors.

Cutrently the commission handles morethan 7 Million documents annually,.and theswitch to electronic files processing and dis-semination means investors will get key M-formation sooner. In a field where timing iscrucial; EDGAR may make America's capitalmarkets "far more efficient," said Goodman.

The SEC was formed in 1933 as pari ofthe New Deal to regulate the securities mar-kets and provide Information to investors.

Conwanies often use -mord processors toprepare filings for the SEC and submit themin paper form to the agency, which wouldthen convert them to microfiche files. "Someprivate vendors would take this informationand rekey some of it" and sell access to it,Goodman explained.

It occurred to the commission in the early1980s that new technology could be used "tofurther the mission" of the agency.

After a study of the idea the commissionestablished a pilot program for the EDGARsystem; working with a group of companieswho agreed to submit electronic filings eitherover the telephone or by computer tapes ordiskettes.

It was important that the SEC computeraccept electronic filings in different formatsto take into accotmt the variety of computersystems used by private companies; shenoted.

The pilot program began in 1984, andsince then hundreds of corporations, finan-cial institutions; and utilities have submittedelectronic filings as part of the experiment.The SEC hopes to make EDGAR fully opera-tional beginning in 1986.

A major question surrounding EDGAR;she acknowledged; was financing. One esti-

19

mate has put the cost at $70 million; Theagency initially decided that a contractorshould provide the hardware and softwarenecessary for EDGAR in return for being ableto sell access to the data, she said. The SEClater modified that, saying that the pri-vate contractor should underwrite receivingand disseminating the corporate disclosuresin return for selling access to the data base;The agency is looking to Congress to fundthe cost of its internal processing sys-tem;

The commission still makes paper andmicrofiche files available to the public and;since EDGAR went on line, has installedcomputer ieiminals for free public use at SECreference rooms in Washington; New York,and Chicago, Goodman said.

While all the funding issues for EDGARhave not yet been resolved, Goodman said,one thing is clear: the electronically storedcorporate filings are an extremely valuablecommodity. "There's a tremendous amountof analysis done of companies' financial state-ments" in making investment decisions, shenoted. In the case of mergers, where twofirms may be competing to take over a third,information "is valuable the sooner you canget it," she said.

"Investment decisions involving millionsand Millions of dollars are made every daybased in part on the information acquired inthe filings," she said.

Goodman then demonstrated the EDGARsystem, using a projector to display computerterminal images for the forum participants;

She called up a filing by Pacific Bell andshowed how an SEC examiner would use thesystem to check the document. The computeroffers an electronic file folder containing allcorrespondence related to a particular filingand even sets aside the bottom of the screento allow an examiner to make notes.

20 2 6"

Impact of Federal Electronic InformationSystems

When the lights came back on, it was theturn of Robert Gellman to address the forum.Gellman is counsel to the House Subcommit-tee on Government Information, Justice, andAgriculture.

(Gellman said he was expressing his ownviews and not necessarily those of subcom-mittee members.)

He said Congress sees the emergence ofelectronic information systems in federalagencies as an opportunity to make informa-tion more available and useful to the public,but legislators also have concerns that agen-cies will abuse the new technology.

Among the fears, he said, were that gov-ernment departments would restrict accessto data to silence agency critics, control datafor political purposes, and regard data banksas a method to fund financially strappedagencies.

The subcommittee, chaired by OklahomaCongressman Glenn English, held three daysof hearings on the issue in 1985. The inquirywas spurred after several federal agenciesbegan moving to electronic information sys-tems at a tirne when issues surrounding theiruse had not been addressed or resolved.

Gellman said the subcommittee is notopposed to agencies going to automated sys-tems. "Our interest is a positive one," he toldthe audience. Electronically stored informa-tion has the potential to make governmentagencies more efficient, and their data easierto get and more useful.

A key issue the subcommittee is address-ing is the control of the information, Gellmansaid. Electronic systems give an agency the"potential to increase its control over data,"he added.

"In the past, anyone with a Xerox ma-chine or a printing press could redistribute"documents in an agency's files. "That created

21

a check on the agency's ability to control itsown data," he said.

He noted a recent newspaper article thatexplained that in the Soviet Union access tophotoduplication machines is tightly con-trolled. "The Russians have learned that oneway to control information is to control tech-nology," he said. There are probably morephotoduplication machines within a two-mileradius of the Library of Congress than in theentire Soviet Union, he added.

Another concern is that an agency mightcontrol data by charging high user fees todistribute data that has "already been com-piled at taxpayer expense." Further, anagency "could use monopoly power to con-trol information for political purposes,"deciding that "we are [only] going to let thepeople we like use it."

The FOI Act and the absence of govern-ment copyright work together to prevent anagency from controlling use of its informa-tion. Yet, he argued, the National Library ofMedicine licenses copies of its electronic database to other organizations at a high priceand, under the agreements, prohibits the re-release of that data.

"I think what NLM is doing is a danger-ous precedent," he mid [NLM diredor Lind-berg later pointed out that NLM revenues arereturned directly to the Treasury].

Gellman said that lacause the copyrightlaws exempt government informationwhichmeans the information has no proprietaryvalueit would be inappropriate "to financea system of user fees." He said the Securitiesand Exthange Commission followed the rightcourse in deciding to seek public funding forparts of EDGAR it needs for its own adminis-trative use. Computer systems "are expensiveand agencies are looking for revenuesources," he said. "Funds are hard to get fromCongress these days."

Gellman critidzed the Patent and Trade-mark Office for entering into an exclusive

22

arrangement with the private sector thatrestricted public access to agency informa-tion. "The pressures of the budget are forc-ing agencies to cio things that are not a goodidea," he said. The 1-'10 had a "warped senseof priorities" in putting financing concernsin front of maintaining public access to itsdata, he added.

Another issue for the subcommittee, hesaid, was whether government agencies are,in fact, competing with the private sector.

He noted that the SEC is requiring itsEDGAR contractor to make data available toother private firms at the wholesale cost. TheDepartment of Agriculture selected its com-puter contractor to serve solely as a whole-saler to private vendors. That allows thosefirms the chance to enhance the informationand sell it on the open market. Each agency'sapproach is "a way of dealing with unfaircompetition questions."

But when it comes to electronic mailaservice now offered by private companies"I'm not sure that's the kind of service anagency should offer."

Gellman also had some advice for agen-des thinking of going to electronic informa-tion systems: involve all parties from theoutset. "Announce your plans, actively seekout people who will be affected by the sys-tem, don't wait for these people to find you,don't go along and plan your system for twoor three years and then expect to spring iton somebody."

He said that one of the things agenciesshould avoid is the type of fight the SEC hashad with Michigan Congressman JohnDingell, Chairman of the House Committeeon Energy and Commerce, who believes theSEC needs congressional approval to imple-ment EDGAR, "and there's a dear and glar-ing dispute over this point," said Gellman.

He also advised user5 of an agency's in-formation to stay vigilant. "Keep an eye onthe agency, be aggressive,insist on being in-

223

volved in the planning," he said. "Users can'tsit back and wait for the agency to come tothem."

Information Indus-try ConcernsThe audience had heard the viewpoints

of various government officials during theday, but the last two speakers at the forumrepresented different users of information.

The first speaker was David Y. Peyton,Director of Government Relations for the In-formation Industry Assodation. The IIA wasfounded in 1968 and today represents 400firms whose business is information. Manyof them provide Specialized computer databases often developed by statistics and otherinformation provided by the government.

Peyton said his group strongly favors themove to automating government agencies butsaid a series of safeguards must be adoptedto make sure it is done openly and fairly.

In examining what it wants from an elec-tronic information System, a governmentagency should also take into account whatprivate users of that data need or want.Peyton hailed the OMB circular as a "land=mark achievement" and noted that one of itsprinciples is to avoid government duplicationof information services available in the pri-vate sector. Before seeking bids for a corn=puter system, he said, a government agencyshould find out whether the information ser-vices it needs already exist "Compare thatwith what its own requirements are andfigure out how to meld the two together."

He said the government should "main-tain a level playing field" between a firm thatis managing an agency's data base and othercompanies that want to acquire that informa-tion, enhance it, and sell the "value-added"information. One approach, he said, wouldbe to specify contractually the terms underwhich a vendor to the agency could fundionas a retailer of value-added data at the sametime as other, outside firms.

24 30

Electronic filing systems cost "tens ofmillions of dollars," Peyton said, and the gov-ernment should devise a policy on how theyare finarred. The funds for a system shouldcome frc all its beneficiaries from filingfees, increased agency appropriations, anduser fees while the type of controversialbarter arrangements used by the SEC and thePTO should be limited, he said.

If there are to be exchange agreementsin which a company gets marketing rights inreturn for creating an electronic file, thosearrangements should be ratified by Congressand with the understanding that they willsupplement, not replace, congressional fund-ing. In addition, the agency should not takeadvantage of the contrador, and there shouldbe no attempts to exclude elecfronic informa-tion from the FOI Act.

Agencies also must be careful to a ioidconflicts or apparent conflicts of interest forcompanies selected to develop and manageelectronic files, warned Peyton. He cited asan example the SEC's use of the firm ArthurAndersen, which also acts as an auditingcompany for corporations who must filefinancial statements with the SEC.

Among other steps the governmentshould take, Peyton said, is to certify elec-tronic files as official records, seek advice onsystems management from the users, andestablish an umbrella policy for all the sys-tems. Finally, he said, the governmentshould employ technological advances asthey become available.

Information Users ConarnsThe final speaker was Eileen D. Cooke,

Dir&tor of the American Library Association'sWashington office. Smith, in intrcducing her,said Cooke's leadership over the years hascemented strong bonds between Congress,educators and librarians across the country.

Cooke said budget cuts and increasedcosts are affecting basic library services.

31 25

Libraries were suffering from double-digit in-flation long before the rest of the countrywas. Also, libraries may not have theresources to buy the computer equipment todisseminate electronic information. Further,the view that government-held informationis a commodity to be sold stands as a hurdleto an 'informed electorate.'

"Is there some reason they leave usersto the last?" she chided, noting herappearance as the last speaker of the day.

Much of her address dwelt on the effectsof budget austerity measures on libraries andtheir users. The pressures of cost cutting arenot only reducing basic services, she said, butgiving weight to the argument that informa-tion is something that must be purchased.

Free mailing for the blind and the handi-capped, as well as inter-library loan rates, areagain in jeopardy, slated for elirninath -q inthe FiScal Year 1987 budget. Also, non-profitgroups that rely on the mail to get their wordout are facing increased postage costs."Although postal rates seem very pedestrianwhen we talk about electronic filing, they stillconstitute a very important factor in tradi-tional library services," she said.

Cooke said that it is important to tellCongress and others about the fundamentalproblems facing libraries and to establish adialogue with all sides. The 4.3 percent pre-liminary round of cuts under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget reductions are badenough, but $33 million in library grants wasdue for recision in 1986 and by the start ofFY '87 another 25 percent cut is scheduled."It is going to be brutal," she said.

She told the audience that "we can allidentify with the $18 million reductionimposed by the initial round of cuts on theLibrary of Congress. And at the same timeas funding cuts are being made, libraries areseeing expenses increase; both telecommuni-cation and postage costs are on the rise, shesaid.

26 2 2

When AT&T was divesting, it propose(increasing rates for telephone links betweexlibraries by 73 percent. After an arduous lobbying effort, the increase was limited to 2(percent. But there have been two rate increases since then, adding up to a total of 4(percent. In addition, if Congress approvesthe FY '87 budget proposal to eliminate fundSto pay for postal subsidies, fourth-class li-brary rates would go to the ninety-four centcommercial rate-100 percent over the 1984rate of forty-seven cents. "In a private sec-tor library, they pass [cost increases] on tothe customer; our customer is the taxpayer,"she said.

Another strain on library budgets is in=creased mailing fees for books. Raising therate lust a few cents for each book can trans-late into "tens of thousands" of dollars inincreased costs, she said.

Another source of concern is the risingcost of public documents, she noted, refer-ring to the 300 percent increase in the costof the Federal Register. "Many people stoppedbuying it" and turned to their local librariesfor it, she said. But many library branches"can't afford that either."

Electronically stored information may beuseful, but "will libraries have the where-withal to purchase the equipment to takeadvantage of all this technologyr she asked.

Turning to the private sector to produceinformation raises several fundamental con-cerns for librarians, she said, includingwhether the country is selling its "birthrightto help fill the deficit gulch."

Among the fears, she added, is the éffedof privatizing information on copyright lawand the Freedom of Information Act. In addi-tion, private information providers may haveconflicts of interest, she said. If oil companieswere to take over Landsat, for example,would they release satellite information thatshowed possible oil fields to their com-petitors?

3327

Cooke argued that few library users areaware of the details of OMB Circular A-430and that librarians should study the docu-ment and let people know about its provi-sions. "You may take for granted thateverybody knows abbut this, but they don't."

She concludédr telling the forum thatOMB's need to qit the budget must beweighed against a Ioaderobjedive. "Are wegoing to weigh the c st of information accesSon the rnarketplace scales of the Office ofManagement and Budget or on the scales ofjuStice and equality? What price can we puton an informed electorate and democracy?"she asked in a poignant rezninder of what theday's forum was all about.

3 428