Every once in a while we like to highlight government documents librarians who are engaging in creative documents outreach. One such person is Lori Smith of Southeastern Louisiana University. Lori has a MySpace profile complete with a fairly active blog. The profile and blog are very focused on government information and I think Lori has done a good job in selecting topics like to appeal to MySpace folks. Some of her recent topics have been:

• Acne or Staph?
• Still Missing
• Get Involved!
• Stingrays

It's not clear to me whether Lori is doing this on her own time or as part of her official duties. While the former would be great, the latter would be cooler.

Thanks, Lori for breaking out of the "documents ghetto" and showing folks who might never walk into a depository library what their government is doing.

Full Disclosure: I consider Lori Smith a friend and I collaborated with her on Tapping state government information sources.

Do you know someone who is doing nontraditional documents outreach? Tell us! It doesn't have be something Web 2.0 - it could be someone handing out FDLP bookmarks at the mall, or GPO Access bumper stickers, or things I can't think of at the moment. Just something besides the traditional in-library promotions or depository flags on library web pages. While we need to keep doing those things, we need to promote outside our walls.

Thanks to Patrice McDermott of Open the Government for passing along the following DVD announcement:

OpenTheGovernment.org
Americans for Less Secrecy, More Democracy

Contact: Emily Feldman or Patrice McDermott
Organization: OpenTheGovernment.org
Phone Number: (202) 332-6736
Email address: info@openthegovernment.org

DVD on Government Secrecy Conference Released "Are We Safer in the Dark?" covers national discussion on right-to-know, access to information, and openness

For Immediate Release
Washington, DC, 28 September 2006 -- A DVD examining the issues of government secrecy is now available for purchase on the Special Libraries Association (SLA) website for the cost of $25 (USD). Titled, "Are We Safer in the Dark, A Sunshine Week National Dialogue On Open Government & Secrecy," the DVD is a recording of a national teleconference held during Sunshine Week and produced through a collaboration of national organizations dedicated to open government.

The organizations sponsoring the event and DVD are OpenTheGovernment.org and American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, American Society of Newspaper Editors / Sunshine Week, Association of Research Libraries, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, League of Women Voters, National Freedom of Information Coalition, National Press Club, and Special Libraries Association.

"An open and accountable government is the hallmark of an informed and engaged citizenry," said Patrice McDermott, Director of OpenTheGovernment.org. "We believe that the American public is safer when we know the risks and threats we face and ensure our government is taking the steps to address them while respecting our rights and liberties. We cannot risk remaining in the dark."

The DVD records the 90-minute national teleconference conducted on 13 March, during Sunshine Week 2006 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The distinguished speakers at that event addressed important issues and fielded questions that came in from audiences in sites throughout the U.S. The resulting DVD is a complete discussion on the hot-button issues surrounding open access to government information in the United States today.

The DVD features speakers & video segments addressing the following issues:

Do federal laws such as the Freedom of Information Act fulfill their promise to guarantee openness in government?

How do laws passed and policies/regulations implemented since 9/11 encourage secrecy or openness?

How does transparency affect the government's readiness and response to disasters such as Sago Mines and Hurricane Katrina? What about the public's ability to plan and respond - or to prevent disasters?

What tools and resources work effectively in safeguarding the public's ability to hold government accountable?

To order a copy of Are we Safer in the Dark? please visit the SLA website: http://www.sla.org/marketplace/stores/1/DVD_-_Are_We_Safer_in_the_Dark_P90.cfm.

About OpenTheGovernment.org
OpenTheGovernment.org is a coalition of consumer and good government groups, environmentalists, library groups, journalists, labor and others united to make the federal government a more open place in order to make us safer, strengthen public trust in government, and support our democratic principles.

About Sunshine Week
Sunshine Week is a national initiative to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include print, broadcast and online news media, civic groups, libraries, non-profits, schools and others interested in the public's right to know. Sunshine Week is led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and is funded by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation of Miami. Though spearheaded by journalists, Sunshine Week is about the public's right to know what its government is doing, and why. Sunshine Week seeks to enlighten and empower people to play an active role in their government at all levels, and to give them access to information that makes their lives better and their communities stronger.

Even without seeing the video, I think I can confidently say that the answer to the title question is a resounding no. But order the DVD anyway. It'd make a nice library addition or family conversation starter.

I was recently asked to come up with a number of statistics about electronic state publications held by the Alaska State Library. I thought it was only fair to share the fruits of my labors with you.

Facts about the e-documents collection:

Cataloged Titles: 716 (614 books, 72 maps, 30 serials)

These 716 titles live in 3,069 files using 3.9GB of storage space. Many documents are multi-part, especially maps.

The average state documents file is then 1.3MB.

Facts about the usage of Alaska e-docs during Jan-Jun 2006:

Files downloaded - 687 files (all or part of a document) were downloaded 32,071 times between 1/1/2006 and 6/30/2006.

Top Five Alaska e-docs (Jan-Jun 2006):

1) Area Management Report for Recreational Fisheries of the Prince William Sound Management Area, 2005
http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2006/01/ocm63149464.pdf
Downloaded 247 times

2) A History of Organized Fire Suppression and Management in the Last Frontier
http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2006/05/ocm69670021.pdf
Downloaded 238 times

3) Assessment of Coho Salmon from the Kenai River, Alaska, 2000
http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2006/01/ocm63175374.pdf
Downloaded 218 times

4) Alaska Public Transportation Management System (APTMS) Statewide Asset Inventory and Implementation Plan 2000 – 2006
http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2005/11/ocm62257140.pdf
Downloaded 209 times

5) Patterns and Trends In Subsistence Salmon Harvests, Norton Sound and Port Clarence, 1994-2003
http://library.state.ak.us/asp/edocs/2005/10/ocm62122863.pdf
Downloaded 205 times

Organizations that have used Alaska e-docs:

The stats below are based on a total of 835 visitor sessions initiated between 1/1/2006 and 6/30/2006. On average we had four visits a day, but that is still more than I notice people using state docs in the library.

1) Alaska based organizations - 153 visits or 18.3% of total. Alaska based organizations were:
Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc.
Alaska Library Network
First City Libraries (Ketchikan)
GCI Communications
Juneau Public Libraries
State of Alaska Offices
University of Alaska

2) Alaska State Library - 153 visits or 18.3% of total. When I get more time, it might be helpful to try and filter out our IP addresses so the report reflects outside activity only.

3) Non-Alaska government agencies - 23 visits or 2.75% of total. Non-Alaska government agencies were:
State of Missouri Office of Administration
State of Tennessee
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture - NAL
U.S. Dept. of Commerce - NOAA - NMFS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IRM/BFO, HQ
U.S. Geological Survey

4) Non-Alaska Universities - 283 or 33.9% of total. Non-Alaska universities were:
Arizona State University
Arizona Western College
Auburn University
Brigham Young University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Georgetown University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Indiana University
Michigan State University
North Carolina State University
Northeastern University
Rice University
Stanford University Network
University of British Columbia
University of California at Berkeley
University of Connecticut
University of Illinois
University of Maryland
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Notre Dame
University of Pittsburgh
University of Utah
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Vanderbilt University
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
Western Michigan University
Yale University

Some of these universities (at least Stanford) are LOCKSS caches. But some usage might be from actual human beings at these institutions.

All of the above usage statistics were generated using a six month Web Trends report. If you are familiar with WebTrends, would you look through the report and let me know if you have suggestions for other statistics I could use or correcting my interpretation of the statistics I did use. I feel that I've been intellectually honest, but I welcome other interpretations.

Also, if you know of other states with similar data, I'd be very interested in hearing about them!

Thanks to a recent ALA e-mail, I learned about Alliance for Taxpayer Access.

According to their web site, they are:

A diverse and growing alliance of organizations representing taxpayers, patients, physicians, researchers, and institutions that support open public access to taxpayer-funded research.

They also have a statement of principles that while focusing on scientific data, I think apply to all government data:

1. American taxpayers are entitled to open access on the Internet to the peer-reviewed scientific articles on research funded by the U.S. Government.

2. Widespread access to the information contained in these articles is an essential, inseparable component of our nation’s investment in science.

3. This and other scientific information should be shared in cost-effective ways that take advantage of the Internet, stimulate further discovery and innovation, and advance the translation of this knowledge into public benefits.

4. Enhanced access to and expanded sharing of information will lead to usage by millions of scientists, professionals, and individuals, and will deliver an accelerated return on the taxpayers' investment.

Their latest press release noted that under the voluntary medical deposit to the National Institutes of Health, less than five percent of federally funded research is being deposited.

America can and should do better.

Alliance for Taxpayer Access is just one of the groups we at FGI feel are fighting the good fight for information access. Check out our organizations page for more.

Please respond to FGI's new poll in the left column of the homepage. This time we're asking for our readers' backgrounds so we can get a better sense of the demographics of our readership. Thanks for helping us out!

New Scientist has an interesting series of articles about social networking, including articles by Bruce Sterling (I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by Google) and Sherry Turkle (I'll have to ask my friends).

My own favorite, though, is:

• The internet could be so much better (interview with Ted Nelson) New Scientist, September 16, 2006, page 54-55 issue 2569.

Nelson's influence on the way we communicate goes back more that forty years to when he coined the term hypertext and envisioned his Xanadu project. I believe some of his comments on social networking sites can give us insights into how we think about digital government information.

For example, he says that how hypertext is used determines which linkages among sites and people and documents are easy, which are hard, and which are impossible. Anyone who has tried to link directly to documents buried in GPO Access knows that linking to government information can be very, very difficult. (If you haven't looked lately, check out the page Help: Linking to Documents on GPO Access which begins with the disclaimer "Documents that exist within databases on GPO Access cannot be bookmarked." Try creating "a unique URL string" and see if it works. If you've created links in the past, check to see if they still work. I did and about half worked and half didn't. Ask yourself how many people will actually use this kind of linking? Will we someday see a better system when FDSys is online? At this point, we can only hope.)

Nelson also says that many social networking sites are "all about real estate. You set out your stall, stake out a territory....The whole World Wide Web is about a sense of ownership." Nelson envisions something very different: "sharing media and acknowledging sources, without walls or boundaries." Compare that to the GPO Vision of documents for sale. Look in vain for a vision of open-linking, DRM-free access, guarantees of free and fully functional information in the GPO vision and ask yourself whether it is more about "ownership" and control of information or sharing information without boundaries.

Finally, Nelson, touches on but does not explore an issue critical to democracy when he is asked about dynamic documents that are never out of date. The interviewer asks, "Does that mean documents are never finished?" and Nelson replies, "Finishing is a political act." In the government information community we know this lesson well. Everyday we see how "finishing" a document and publishing it is often more of a political statement of how the government interprets information than it is a statement of objective fact. It is also, however, a tangible record that citizens can use to hold elected representatives and civil servants accountable. But how does "finishing" relate to information that is "never out of date" in the government information world? Will we, in the future, have a record of what we knew and when we knew it, of what the government said and when it said it? Or will we only have an ever-changing "never out of date" view of what the government says at the moment we ask for information? And, will GPO and OMB and government information policy facilitate government control of information or will information be free to use and re-use and redistribute?

FDLP Libraries can play an essential role in ensuring free, open access to government information, but government information specialists will have to insist on a vision very different from GPO's if we are to make that vision happen.

Reposted from a March 2006 blog entry:

Today, the Government Printing office announced the availability of H.R. 3199 (USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005) through GPO Access. Also available through GPO Access was President Bush's "Statement on Signing" this piece of legislation, as reported by the March 13, 2006 issue of Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. Taken together, the new law and the President's signing statement paint a disturbing yet familar picture -- The President clearly intends to ignore language in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization intended to keep Congress informed of the Administration's use of the Act.

Here is the President's signing statement in full (bolding mine):

Statement on Signing the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
of 2005

March 9, 2006

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005,'' and then S. 2271, the ``USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.'' The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.
The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair
foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

George W. Bush
The White House,
March 9, 2006.

Observers across the political spectrum generally agree that the phrase "manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch" means that the President believes that Congress did not have authority to legislate in this area and intends to ignore the Congressional directive contained in statute.

So, what do sections 106A, 119, and 756(e)(2) do? They simply ask for information to be provided Congressional committees for oversight purposes. While reading over the sections below, please note the minimal disclosure required by the law - not to the public, not even to the full Congress, but simply to Congressional committees charged with the oversight of the department charged with carrying this law. But the President apparrently feels his executive should simply have authority without accountability.

Here is the information the President doesn't want two Congressional committees to see:

Sec. 106A. Audit on access to certain business records for foreign intelligence purposes.

(a) Audit.--The Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall perform a comprehensive audit of the effectiveness and use, including any improper or illegal use, of the investigative authority provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation under title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.).
(b) Requirements.--The audit required under subsection (a) shall include--
(1) an examination of each instance in which the Attorney General, any other officer, employee, or agent of the Department of Justice, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a designee of the Director, submitted an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (as such term is defined in section 301(3) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1821(3))) for an order under section 501 of such Act during the calendar years of 2002 through 2006, including--
(A) whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation requested that the Department of Justice submit an application and the request was not submitted to the court (including an examination of the basis for not submitting the application);
(B) whether the court granted, modified, or denied the application (including an examination of the basis for any modification or denial);
(2) the justification for the failure of the Attorney General to issue implementing procedures governing requests for the production of tangible things under such section in a timely fashion, including whether such delay harmed national security;
(3) whether bureaucratic or procedural impediments to the use of such requests for production prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from taking full advantage of the authorities provided under section 501 of such Act;
(4) any noteworthy facts or circumstances relating to orders under such section, including any improper or illegal use of the authority provided under such section; and
(5) an examination of the effectiveness of such section as an investigative tool, including--
(A) the categories of records obtained and the importance of the information acquired to the intelligence activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other Department or agency of the Federal Government;
(B) the manner in which such information is collected, retained, analyzed, and disseminated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including any direct access to such information (such as access to ``raw data'') provided to any other Department, agency, or instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or tribal governments or any private sector entity;
(C) with respect to calendar year 2006, an examination of the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General under section 501(g) of such Act and whether such minimization procedures protect the constitutional rights of United States persons;
(D) whether, and how often, the Federal Bureau of Investigation utilized information acquired pursuant to an order under section 501 of such Act to produce an analytical intelligence product for distribution within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to the intelligence community (as such term is defined in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4))), or to other Federal, State, local, or tribal government Departments, agencies, or instrumentalities;
and(E) whether, and how often, the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided such information to law enforcement authorities for use in criminal proceedings.
(c) Submission Dates.--
(1) Prior years.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, or upon completion of the audit under this section for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004, whichever is earlier, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report containing the results of the audit conducted under this section for calendar years 2002, 2003, and
2004.
(2) Calendar years 2005 and 2006.--Not later than December 31, 2007, or upon completion of the audit under this section for calendar years 2005 and 2006, whichever is earlier, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate a report containing the results of the audit conducted under this section for calendar years 2005 and 2006.
(d) Prior Notice to Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence; Comments.--
(1) Notice.--Not less than 30 days before the submission of a report under subsection (c)(1) or (c)(2), the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall provide such report to the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.
(2) Comments.--The Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence may provide comments to be included in the reports submitted under subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) as the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence may consider necessary.
(e) Unclassified Form.--The reports submitted under subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) and any comments included under subsection (d)(2) shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

--------------------
Sec. 109. Enhanced congressional oversight.

a) Emergency Physical Searches.--Section 306 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1826) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate,'' after ``the Senate'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``and the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate'' and inserting ``and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(4) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) the total number of emergency physical searches authorized by the Attorney General under section 304(e) and the total number of subsequent orders approving or denying such physical searches.''.
(b) Emergency Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices.--Section 406(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1846(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) the total number of pen registers and trap and trace devices whose installation and use was authorized by the Attorney General on an emergency basis under section 403, and the total number of subsequent orders approving or denying the installation and use of such pen registers and trap and trace devices.''.
(c) Additional Report.--At the beginning and midpoint of each fiscal year, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, a written report providing a description of internal affairs operations at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, including the general state of such operations and a detailed description of investigations that are being conducted (or that were conducted during the previous six months) and the resources devoted to such investigations. The first such report shall be submitted not later than April 1, 2006.
(d) Rules and Procedures for FISA Courts.--Section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f)(1) The courts established pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) may establish such rules and procedures, and take such actions, as are reasonably necessary to administer their responsibilities under this Act.
``(2) The rules and procedures established under paragraph (1), and any modifications of such rules and procedures, shall be recorded, and shall be transmitted to the following:
``(A) All of the judges on the court established pursuant to subsection (a).
``(B) All of the judges on the court of review established pursuant to subsection (b).
``(C) The Chief Justice of the United States.
``(D) The Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
``(E) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
``(F) The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
``(G) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
``(3) The transmissions required by paragraph (2) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.''.

----------------------
Sec. 756. Authority to award competitive grants to address methamphetamine use by pregnant and parenting women offenders.

(e) Performance Accountability; Reports and Evaluations.--
(1) Reports.--Successful applicants shall submit to the Attorney General a report on the activities carried out under the grant at the end of each fiscal year.
(2) Evaluations.--Not later than 12 months at the end of the 3 year funding cycle under this section, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction that summarizes the results of the evaluations conducted by recipients
and recommendations for further legislative action.

To me, this signing statement represents just what James Madison had in mind when he said:

A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.

Reposted from a July 2006 blog entry:

Free Government Information writers have reported on Presidential Signing Statements before. In the past two months, two new statements have been issued and are available through the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents:

• Statement on Signing the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 from the May 29, 2006 compiliation.
• Statement on Signing the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 from the June 19, 2006 compiliation.

Both of these measures contain language that the President intends to ignore certain passed statutes as unconstitutional. The Supplemental Bill signing statement contains provisions rejecting reporting requirements:

Section 1209 is:

SEC. 1209. None of the funds provided in this chapter may be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in fiscal year 2005 and 2006 appropriations to the department of Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, development, test and evaluation new start program without prior written notification to the congressional defense committees.

Section 2202 is:

None of the funds provided in this chapter may be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in fiscal year 2005 and 2006 appropriations to the Department of
Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, development, test and evaluation new start program without prior written notification to the congressional defense committees.

The signing statement also says:

That provision states:

For the ‘‘Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund’’, $1,958,089,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose of allowing the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization to investigate, develop and provide equipment,supplies, services, training, facilities, personnel and funds to assist United States forces in the defeat of improvised explosive devices: Provided further, That within 60 days of the enactment of this Act, a plan for the intended management and use of the Fund is provided to the congressional defense committees: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees providing assessments of the evolving threats, individual service requirements to counter the threats, the current strategy for predeployment training of members of the Armed Forces on improvised explosive devices, and details on the execution of this Fund:

The full text of the supplemental bill is available on Thomas.

The PBS show NOW has a show this week about ballot initiatives for 2006 and the shady financial support for initiatives with titles like "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" and "SOS - Stop Over Spending." The streaming video will appear on the site in a few days after the show has aired, but for now check out the handy state-by-state map of ballot initiatives included on the site. The map was created by Angus King, former Independent Governor of Maine (1995 - 2003).

Thanks to Bernadine Abbott Hoduski for posting the following Federal Register notice to govdoc-l:

[Federal Register: September 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 182)]
[Notices]
[Page 54986]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8221-3]

Notification of Closure of the EPA Headquarters Library

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA Headquarters Library will close its doors to walk-in patrons and visitors on October 1, 2006. This notice provides information regarding how members of the public can access EPA documents held in the Headquarters Repository Library collection and in electronic format.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Tumarkin, Mailcode 2843T, Office of Environmental Information, Information Access Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-0681; e-mail address:
Tumarkin.Jeff@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The trend in recent years has shown a shift in the ways that people request and receive library services from EPA.
With more material available online and electronically, EPA has found that its employees and the public are finding the materials they need from EPA's web site and they are requesting more information electronically. In addition, with tighter security at Federal facilities, the public's physical visits to the EPA Headquarters Library have been declining. These trends, in addition to reductions in the library's FY07 budget, suggested to EPA that it needed to use information technology to improve its delivery of library services to EPA and public patrons. Library services for EPA staff and the public will be maintained as detailed in the new EPA Library Network National Framework which is available online at http://www.epa.gov/natlibra/.

Beginning October 1, 2006, the EPA Headquarters Library, located in Room 3340 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, will become one of three EPA repositories for paper copies of EPA documents, reports and publications. The other two repositories will be located at the EPA-RTP Library, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 27711, and at the Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268.
Public access to EPA's valuable documents collections continues to be a critical mission of the EPA Libraries. Thousands of EPA documents and reports can be accessed in full-text electronic format through the National Environmental Publications Information System (NEPIS) at http://nepis.epa.gov/ Members of the public can also search for EPA documents in the libraries' catalog at http://www.epa.gov/natlibra/.
ols.htm. Once items of interest are identified, they can be borrowed via interlibrary loan thru participating institutions. The public will continue to have access to environmental information thru the EPA Regional Libraries remaining open http://www.epa.gov/natlibra/libraries.htm
.

The answers to many questions about EPA and its activities can be found in the Agency's Frequently Asked Questions database which can searched online at http://publicaccess.custhelp.com/. Additionally, the public will continue to have access to comprehensive environmental information via the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov.

Dated: September 13, 2006.
Linda A. Travers,
Acting Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer, Office of
Environmental Information.
[FR Doc. 06-7803 Filed 9-19-06; 8:45 am]

As discussed in other FGI postings and on govdoc-l, information access through the EPA web site falls short of "comprehensive environmental information," especially since there are thousands of EPA reports that are not currently digitized and are lacking a firm digitization plan.

Ironically, this short notice (9/20 to 10/1) shows up the strength of having the Federal Register available over the internet. In the old days, it would have taken well over a week for the Federal Register to be sent to West Coast libraries and we might not have learned about this closure until after it happened.

LegiStorm -- a new, free website -- has put the congressional pay data from the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate reports online in an easy to use format. Check it out at http://www.legistorm.com .

The new site has been blogged by POGO and many other bloggers are taking delight in new access to the data.

A recent Presidential signing statement appears to refuse Congress reports on sock tarrifs related to CAFTA.

This statement is the latest in a series of Presidential signing statements that purport to deny reports and other accountability information ordered by Congress.

So we've decided to start collecting signing statements that appear to have a direct effect on information availability and have devoted a new library page to them.

While confident we can handle information suppressing signing statements from here on out, we at FGI were hoping that our readers could send us examples of past signing statements that a plain reading would indicated that a directed report would not be issued by the executive branch.

This is no mere academic exercise. Precedents are being set. If the practice of waving away reporting requirements with a stroke of the pen stands, we may have very little government information to work with down the road. With enough sunlight, perhaps this shadow will pass.

On August 17th, 2006 President Bush signed the Pension Protection Act of
2006, but added the signing statement below:

[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents]
From the 2006 Presidential Documents Online via GPO Access [frwais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:pd21au06_txt-11]

[Page 1470-1471]

Pages 1455 1477

Week Ending Friday, August 18, 2006

Statement on Signing the Pension Protection Act of 2006

August 17, 2006

Today I have signed into law H.R. 4, the ``Pension Protection Act of
2006.'' This legislation strengthens the pension insurance system and
ensures that workers will receive better information about their pension
plans. The legislation makes permanent the deductible limits for
contributions to Individual Retirement Accounts and 401(k) plans,
encourages employers to automatically enroll workers in 401(k) plans,
and expands workers' access to investment advice.
The executive branch shall construe sections 221(a) and 1632(b)(1)
of the Act, which call for the submission of legislative recommendations
to the Congress, in a manner consistent with the constitutional
authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and
to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the
President shall judge necessary and expedient.
Section 1634(e) purports to require the United States Trade
Representative to submit to congressional committees the contents of the
negotiating positions of the United States and foreign countries in
certain international trade negotiations. The executive branch shall
construe section 1634(e) in a

[[Page 1471]]

manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to
conduct the Nation's foreign affairs including negotiations with foreign
countries, supervise the unitary executive branch, and to withhold
information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations,
national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the
performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
George W. Bush
The White House,
August 17, 2006.

Note: H.R. 4, approved August 17, was assigned Public Law No. 109-280.

According to Congress' Thomas service, the offending section 1634(e) reads this way:

(e) Reporting Requirements on Certain Negotiations and Amendments to DR-CAFTA Agreement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and at least quarterly thereafter, the United States Trade Representative shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the status of negotiations and amendments proposed by the United States, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic to the Agreement regarding any change to the rule of origin or alteration of the tariff treatment of socks described in paragraph (2) or any technical correction described in paragraph (3). In addition, the United States Trade Representative shall provide to the appropriate congressional committees copies of any amendments to be proposed by the United States before the amendments are offered and copies of any amendments received by the United States relating to such negotiations.

(2) SOCKS DESCRIBED- For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `socks' means articles classifiable under subheading 6111.20.6050, 6111.30.5050, 6111.90.5050, 6115.91.00, 6115.92.60, 6115.92.90, 6115.93.60, 6115.93.90, 6115.99.14, or 6115.99.18 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

(3) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS DESCRIBED- Technical corrections referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) Clarification of references to `elastomeric yarns' contained in the notes, subheading notes, additional U.S. notes, and statistical notes to chapters 50 to 63 (section XI) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

(B) Clarification of the ability to apply short supply provisions to sewing thread, narrow elastics, and visible linings.

(C) Treatment of women's and girls' woven sleep bottoms under Annex 4.1 of the Agreement.

(D) Addition of a rule of origin for women's and girls' woven sleep bottoms to reflect the rule of origin provided for in subheading 6207.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States and contained in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement.

(E) Provision of women's and girls' sleep bottoms under Annex 4.1-A of the Agreement.

(4) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `appropriate congressional committees' means the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate.

(5) SUNSET- The requirements of paragraph (1) expire on the date on which any change is made to the rule of origin pursuant to article 3.25 of the Agreement for any good described in paragraph (2), or December 31, 2007, whichever occurs later.

I realize I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like all Congress wants here is to be consulted before the Adminstration changes the rules on socks. This is "information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties?" Who knew that socks were so vital to the existance of the Republic? Maybe we should all wear Birkenstocks!

As most informed people are aware, President Bush has been very active in producing Presidential signing statements that appear to indicate portions of laws signed that the Executive branch will either not carry out at all, or will carry out according to the President's interpretation.

We at Free Government Information have noticed recent Presidential signing statements that appear to waive a number of reporting requirements, either to Congress or to the American people. We do not approve of this. In the spirit of sunshine being the best disinfectant, we have decided to collect signing statements where the President appears to state that he will not honor an Act of Congress to provide information.

Since the President has used this hidden and untested veto power hundreds of times according to some accounts, we at FGI are hoping that you will send us instances of earlier siging statements that ignore reporting requirements. Here is a searchable database that includes signing statements to get you started.

Here's what we have so far:

This post, all earlier postings in this series, and my “not a lawyer” disclaimer can be found at http://freegovinfo.info/title44 or through our library under Nonlawyer's Journey through Title 44.

44 USC 1709:

TITLE 44--PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS

CHAPTER 17--DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

Sec. 1709. Blank forms: printing and sale to public

The Public Printer may print for sale by the Superintendent of Documents to the public, upon prepayment, additional copies of approved Government blank forms.

(Pub. L. 90-620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1280.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., Sec. 94 (June 7, 1924, ch. 303,
Sec. 1, 43 Stat. 592).

I really don't have too much to say about this section of Title 44 other than to marvel that it took an Act of Congress to empower the Government Printing Office to sell blank government forms. You could say that this section of law symbolizes the difficulty of reforming anything about government publishing and distribution – so many seemingly minor things are written into statute that even minor reforms take Congressional action. On the other hand, it has been good insurance against the Federal Depository Library Program being wiped out entirely in favor of selling all government information.

Another reason that I just had to highlight this section is the fact that the government is empowered to sell blank forms makes it understandable that some agencies should have an Index of blank forms!

Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, said recently that all we need to build an exciting, creative World Wide Semantic Web is for information distributors to expose their information in standard, structured formats. (See: Berners-Lee: Semantic Web's success lies in cooperation, By Jonathan Bennett, CNet News.com, Sep 19, 2006).

Ironically, the example he chose to use is British Ordnance Survey records. This is ironic because the British government now sells "limited-use licences" to its GIS data on a "cost recovery" basis. (See Free data – a valuable commodity, September 18, 2006). Such policies make what Berners-Lee calls "serendipitous reuse" virtually impossible.

For us in the U.S., the lesson is clear: if we want government information (public information, information collected, compiled, and created with public funds) to be part of the Semantic Web, GPO and other government agencies must guarantee that they will make such public information freely available, unencumbered by Digital Rights Management tools, and available in standardized, structured formats.

Unfortunately, GPO has explicitly announced its mission as distributing electronic documents "on a cost recovery basis." This, along with policies such as OMB Circular A-130 that require reliance on the private sector and cost recovery go further to guaranteeing that government information will not be part of the Semantic Web.

GPO could go far to remedying this situation by changing its mission to guarantee that it will deposit digital government information with the existing Federal Depository Library Program libraries. Why does it not do so?

In what I *think* is a case of a government agency attempting to access the power of YouTube, the White House based Office of National Drug Control Policy has placed anti-drug messages on YouTube.

Here is one of the videos:

Is anyone else aware of gov't agencies officially placing material on YouTube? Does this strike you as a good idea? Why or why not?

I wonder what will happen when people invariably tag protest or raunchy videos with ODNCP tags?

Here's an amazingly thorough and well-researched visual representation of how the US federal government spends our income taxes. It shows both the amount spent on each item, and also the percentage change from last year so as to spot budgetary trends. This is one time where the Web doesn't do justice to this fine visual tool, so I'd recommend buying one for your library (note: FGI is in no way connected to Jesse Bachman, the creator, nor will we in any way benefit monetarily from its sale!). You also send one to your congressional representative for 10 bucks!

Last week, you may remember, FGI reported that in 2004, an FCC TV localism report whose findings contrasted with the administration's perspective, was suppressed.

This time it's a 2003 radio ownership report (PDF atttached below). The report found, among other things, that while there was a "5.9 percent increase in the number of radio stations in the country between March 1996 and March 2003, there was a 35 percent decrease in the number of radio owners." It also found that Clear Channel Communications, the largest radio group owner, went from owning 62 stations in 1996, to 1,233 in 2003. This is media consolidation on a grand scale!

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has written FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, saying she wants a full investigation into whether the FCC is suppressing information for political reasons.

Read more about the FCC's media manipulation.

I heard a great little radio piece last week on Against the Grain -- a show that's played on KPFA, my local Pacifica radio station.

Please listen to the interview with Matt Gonzalez (who ran for SF mayor on the Green party ticket last year) and Dave Grenell. They found in their work that it was very diffficult to find out what other municipalities were doing in terms of good environmental and social legislation. So the've put together the Good Legislation wiki (Reader beware: the site is still in beta and may or may not be accessible at this time; I saw the site a few days ago, but today was blocked. Check back frequently).

The site is a place to share the best progressive state, city, county and international legislation, and the most successful grass-roots community programs. Anyone can add legislation to the wiki by creating a free user name.

This is a really interesting use of wikis. By sharing information on successful (or unsuccessful) local/county/state programs, it can help other municipalities build on those successes or avoid those pitfalls associated with poorly thought-out legislation. Kudos Matt and Dave!

Wed 9.06.06| Good Laws, Good News

What if there was one place you could go to find the best progressive laws, practices and programs in the world? Matt Gonzalez and Dave Grenell are building that place, as we speak, online.

According to the Associated Press (September 14, 2006), "the Federal Communications Commission ordered its staff to destroy all copies of a draft study that suggested greater concentration of media ownership would hurt local TV news coverage, a former lawyer at the agency says."

This is despicable. The FCC under Michael Powell and now Kevin Martin has been trying to change the rules for media ownership for several years so that large media corporations could have monopolistic control over local TV/newspaper/radio markets. But, oops!, their own study, paid for at taxpayer expense, found that localism is beneficial to the public and that media concentration has detrimental effects on public access to news and information. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. is on the case and has said she will call for an investigation if answers are not forthcoming.

Read on at Fair and Crooks and liars. The document is attached as well. See this FGI post for more on suppressed FCC documents.

This week’s “not just blogs” installment will highlight the FGI Del.icio.us project. Some of you may have noticed the "Del.icio.us FGI" link in the top toolbar or the various blue links in the left column.

These words are tags from FGI's account on Del.icio.us. The tags lead to all of the Web sites we've collected/bookmarked for future reference.

Del.icio.us is a social bookmarking service. It offers a way to save and describe (i.e., tag) Web sites for later access. The nice thing about del.icio.us is that you can see who else has tagged the site, what terms they've used, how they've described it and what other sites *they've* tagged under the same term. So if you go to del.icio.us you'll see the most recent sites tagged as well as the most popular. This is a great way to discover new sites of interest, and share sites of interest with the community.

"So what?!" you might say. We think that del.icio.us can be a very useful tool for the library community. By using del.icio.us, we're trying to create a defacto portal of sites of interest to the government documents community. And by using del.icio.us, we can collaboratively collect sites of interest. Imagine if librarians use del.icio.us to tag the sites they frequently use as they go about their reference work? In no time, you'll collect lots of sites that you can then share with your users and your colleagues. You can link to your del.icio.us account on your library's Web site or display your tag cloud for your community :-)

Additionally, we're testing out a social hack of delicious by creating and using some common tags -- a controlled vocabulary if you will! If you'd like to help us out, start using the common tags listed below. That way, whenever someone tags a Web resource with, for example, "FGI:blogroll", it'll show up here and the whole FGI community can work together to collect Web sites and resources of interest. The other way you can help is by using the tag "for:freegovinfo" which will automatically send the link that you've tagged to our delicious account.

FGI:articles
FGI:blogroll
FGI:document
FGI:library
FGI:organizations
FGI:research
for:freegovinfo

We hope you'll explore the sites we've tagged, help us build the collection by using those common tags, suggest sites for us to explore by using the "for:freegovinfo" tag, and add us to your network so we can all keep track of what the community is tagging. Librarians are all about collecting, describing and giving access to information, and del.icio.us is a great way to do that online!

For background on delicious, see Melissa Rethlefsen's article in Library Journal and check out the delicious-iana I'm collecting.

Questions? Still not sure why del.icio.us is useful for libraries? Leave a comment or email us at: admin AT freegovinfo DOT info.

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has released their "Internet Watch List" of Legislation to be Stopped in 2006. According to CDT, as midterm elections near, a "number of bills that threaten the bedrock of Internet privacy and civil liberties could either come up for votes or worm their way into larger legislative packages that end up being rushed into law." And further:

"We always see bad bills moving in the waning days of the session, but this year's crop is particularly troubling," CDT Executive Director Leslie Harris said. "Taken together,
these measures threaten to undermine our First and Fourth Amendment rights; weaken our privacy; hobble technological innovation; and change the fundamental nature of the Internet for the worse. If even one of these misguided legislative gambits succeeds we will all be the worse for it."

Of the 9 items on the CDT watchlist, 5 could have potentially damaging effect on libraries:

1) Data Retention
2) Wiretap-Friendly Design Mandates for the Internet
3) Telecom Bill Without Internet Neutrality
4) Broadcast Flag
5) Audio Flag

The volunteers at Free Government Information were surprised to learn of the impending retirement of Ms. Judith Russell, Superintendent of Documents at the Government Printing Office (GPO). Although we have disagreed with Ms. Russell on a number of issues, we believe she shared our overarching goal of public access to government information. Our disagreements were on methods rather than core values. As such, we applaud her long-term commitment to the documents community.

Here are some highlights of things that happened on her watch that we find especially commendable (we're sure the list is longer, but these immediately come to mind ;-) ):

• Issuing the first ever Biennial Survey to include questions on library's local storage of electronic federal documents.
• Starting up the GPO LOCKSS pilot project.
• The first ever webcasts of Depository Library Council events.
• Surveying libraries on possible future PACER access.

We'd especially wish to thank Ms. Russell for her work in making GPO Access a reality. For these deeds and others, we at FGI wish Ms. Russell well in her future endeavors when she retires in early 2007.

All of us at FGI hope that President Bush will move quickly to name both a Superintendent of Documents and Public Printer who will have an intense commitment to the permanent public access of fully functional government information. We hope that channels will remain open for rewarding discussion and collaboration with future Superintendents of Documents and Public Printers on the vital issues of access, preservation, and privacy. The entire documents community working together collaboratively and collegially will broaden the meaning of authenticity and build the depository system of the 21st century.