Home » Commentary (Page 11)
Category Archives: Commentary
Letter of concern to Congressman Duncan re the horrendously bad HR1638 “Census Reform Act of 2013”
We at FGI have been long-time supporters and agitators for the US Census and its companions, most notably the American Community Survey (ACS) -- see for example "Fear, uncertainty, or doubt? Why the Census and ACS are critical to a well-functioning democracy." So it was a complete shock to the system to learn about the Orwellian bill H.R. 1638: Census Reform Act of 2013 making its way through Congress. And we were so happy to learn that Kathy Karn Carmichael, Documents Librarian/ Instructor of Library Science at the University of South Carolina Aiken was going to be in Washington DC and planned to drop off letters of concern to Congressman Duncan's office. My colleague Kris Kasianovitz and I hastily wrote a letter (attached PDF and below), sent it to our University Librarian for approval, and were extremely grateful that he approved it and agreed to add his name to it. We sent a PDF copy to Kathy who added it to her own letter (attached PDF and below), and then sent paper copies to Congressman Duncan, the 14 co-sponsors of the bill, the Chairs and ranking members of the 3 committees taking up the bill, as well as to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, [D-CA18], Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, [D-CA19] and our 2 Senators Feinstein and Boxer. But a bill like this demands more than a letter of concern. So we're posting our letter here on FGI for others to copy/crib and otherwise use as a template for letters of your own and to pass around to friends, family and colleagues, especially to those in districts represented by Congressman Duncan and the other 14 co-sponsors. Kathy has also generously allowed us to post her letter as well. We'd be happy to post copies of others' letters as well. Help us assure that HR1638 "Census Reform Act of 2013" does not move beyond committee and does not rear its ugly head again.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive
June 13, 2013 The Honorable Jeff Duncan 116 Cannon House Office Building United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 Dear Representative Duncan: I am writing regarding H.R. 1638, the Census Reform Act. As a librarian in the Federal Depository program, I am opposed to eliminating the various censuses targeted in this legislation. This data provides valuable, free information, not only to the citizens of South Carolina and the entire country, but to local, state, and federal governments so that they may assess the needs of their constituents. Furthermore, it provides information which is not available elsewhere to business leaders, entrepreneurs and researchers. In addition to my responsibilities as the FDLP coordinator, I am also a reference and instruction librarian at University of South Carolina Aiken. As a frequent user of this data I am able to assist students, faculty, and citizens in this community with their government information research needs. Additionally, I work with clients of the South Carolina Small Business Development Center to help them access government information to prepare business plans or market analyses. Only last week, I was assisting one of their clients with her market analysis. The American Community Survey provided access to data which helped demonstrate the need for a type of healthcare service which is unavailable in our small community and would prevent patients from seeking treatment across the state line in Georgia. You, as a former small business owner, are aware of the challenges in beginning a new business. The ability to access demographic and economic data at no cost which might help these entrepreneurs better understand their target market is vital to ensure their future success. According to your website, this legislation is in response to complaints by South Carolinians who feel these censuses, in particular the American Community Survey, are too intrusive. Living in the age of social media and electronic information and given the recent revelations regarding the government’s access to private information of its citizens without our knowledge, asking questions about the size of your property or the distance of your commute seems trivial. Eliminating these data collection programs impact all Americans. If implemented it would severely limit the ability of all librarians to assist the constituents of the other 434 members of Congress with accessing timely demographic information. I hope you will reconsider moving forward with this legislation and look for alternative methods to resolve the concerns of your constituents. Sincerely, Kathy Karn-Carmichael, MLS University of South Carolina Aiken Gregg-Graniteville Library Aiken, SC 29801 803-641-3320
June 17, 2013 The Honorable Jeff Duncan 116 Cannon House Office Building United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 Dear Congressman Duncan, We are writing to express our grave concern regarding 113 HR 1638, the “Census Reform Act of 2013,” the bill you introduced on April 18, 2013. This bill, rather than “reforming” the Census, will eliminate the collection of the nation’s most critical statistical instruments and cause the nation irreparable harm in negatively affecting public policy planning, scientific and academic research, and the economy. As we understand it, HR 1638 calls for: 1) The repeal and cancellation of certain census activities including the census of agriculture, census of governments, economic census, etc.; 2) curtailing the Census Bureau from conducting any census, survey, sampling or questionnaire including the American Community Survey (ACS) and rescinding any unobligated moneys to carry out the ACS; 3) prohibiting surveys or questionnaires and limiting statistics collected in a decennial census; 4) Repeal of the Census of Agriculture act of 1997. The US Census is enshrined in the US Constitution (Article I, Section 2) and was a significant act by our founders of empowering the people over unruly governments. The legality of the Census has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts. The gathering of information is done in accordance with the US Constitution under the authority of Congress and is regulated by other laws and regulations. The various Census instruments – including the American Community Survey (ACS) – are implemented in a careful, public way under the Constitution, the U.S. Code, and the Code of Federal Regulations – all with the approval of the courts. Today the data gathered by the Census Bureau is used by US citizens, businesses, and researchers and students across the hard- and social sciences and humanities – many of whom access current and historic data in Federal Depository libraries across the country – to measure our economy, know how to adjust spending for and develop social, financial and economic programs, and ensure that we are producing crops and livestock to support consumption and trade. Here are just some of the uses for Census data : • Attracting new businesses to state and local areas. • Forecasting future transportation needs for all segments of the population. • Planning for hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, and the location of other health services. • Designing public safety strategies. • Making business decisions. • Economic development of rural areas. • Planning urban land use. • Creating maps to speed emergency services to households in need of assistance. • Planning investments and evaluating financial risk. • Facilitating scientific research. • Providing evidence in litigation involving land use, voting rights, and equal opportunity. • Drawing school district boundaries. • Assessing the potential for spread of communicable diseases. • Drawing federal, state, and local legislative districts and re-apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. These data that HR 1638 seeks to destroy underpin and are critical to sound policy-making. Without it, the US Congress, State and local governments, businesses, academia, the American people and the libraries which serve them will be flying blind in terms of public policy, planning and ensuring that the US is on sound economic footing. We strongly urge you to reconsider and withdraw HR 1638. Sincerely, Michael A. Keller, University Librarian*, Stanford University James R. Jacobs, FDLP Coordinator, Government Information Librarian*, Stanford University Kris Kasianovitz, Government Information Librarian*, Stanford University 123D Cecil H. Green Library Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 *title and address used for identification purposes only. cc Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, [D-CA18] Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, [D-CA19] Bill co-sponsors: Jason Chaffetz [R-UT3]; Andy Harris [R-MD1]; Walter Jones [R-NC3]; Steve Pearce [R-NM2]; Reid Ribble [R-WI8]; Steve Southerland [R-FL2]; Raúl Labrador [R-ID1]; Thomas Massie [R-KY4]; Bill Posey [R-FL8]; Steve Stockman [R-TX36]; Howard Coble [R-NC6]; Todd Rokita [R-IN4]; Jim Bridenstine [R-OK1]; Austin Scott [R-GA8] Chairman Steve King and Marcia Fudge, ranking member, House Committee on Agriculture: Department Operations, Oversight, and Nutrition Chairman Rep. Harold “Hal” Rogers [R-KY5] and Ranking Member Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY17], House Committee on Appropriations Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA49] and Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings [D-MD7] Senator Diane Feinstein Senator Barbara BoxerContinue reading
When we depend on pointing instead of collecting
NASA took its Technical Report Server (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/) offline this week, saying :
The NASA technical reports server will be unavailable for public access while the agency conducts a review of the site's content to ensure that it does not contain technical information that is subject to U.S. export control laws and regulations and that the appropriate reviews were performed. The site will return to service when the review is complete. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.As Steven Aftergood reported at Secrecy News [emphasis added]:
In other words, all NASA technical documents, no matter how voluminous and valuable they are, should cease to be publicly available in order to prevent the continued disclosure of any restricted documents, no matter how limited or insignificant they may be. "There is a HUGE amount of material on NTRS," said space policy analyst Dwayne Day. "If NASA is forced to review it all, it will never go back online." -- "NASA Technical Reports Database Goes Dark" by Steven Aftergood (March 21st, 2013).Michael L. Nelson of the Department of Computer Science at Old Dominion University investigated the availability of some of the NASA reports at other archives and reports his findings on his blog:
- NTRS, Web Archives, and Why We Should Build Collections, by Michael L. Nelson, Web Science and Digital Libraries (March 23, 2013).
...it is events like this that demonstrate the value of copying by-value and not just by-reference.In other words, pointing to web sites is much less valuable and much more fragile than acquiring copies of digital information and building digital collections that you control. The OAIS reference model for long term preservation makes this a requirement, saying that an organization that intends to provide information to its user community for the long-term, must "Obtain sufficient control of the information provided to the level needed to ensure Long-Term Preservation." Pointing to a web page or PDF at nasa.gov is not obtaining any control. He also makes a distinction between those things that are saved because of their popularity and things that will not be saved unless special care is taken to preserve them:
I'm not concerned about popular culture artifacts disappearing (e.g., see our TPDL 2011 paper about music redundancy in YouTube), but it is not clear that long tail content like NASA reports will enjoy that same level of uncoordinated refreshing and migration. The moral of the story: make copies of the content...And he notes the importance of multiple copies:
...a 1994 NASA TM of mine is on at least six different hosts, none of which are *.nasa.gov. ...If NTRS was a LOCKSS participant then access would be uninterrupted...And Aftergood concludes [emphasis added]:
The upshot is that the government is not an altogether reliable repository of official records. Members of the public who depend on access to such records should endeavor to make and preserve their own copies whenever possible.Here at FGI, we have repeatedly argued that identifying important information that warrants explicit preservation is the age-old role of libraries in society and that it still is (or should be) the key value of libraries in the digital age. Many government agencies, including NASA and the Government Printing Office have good intentions and good programs for preservation and access, but those agencies cannot guarantee that they will always provide preservation and access. In the case of the NTRS web site, Aftergood and others speculate that the take down was a response to a demand by a single Congressman who said in a press conference on March 18 [emphasis added]:
NASA should immediately take down all publicly available technical data sources until all documents that have not been subjected to export control review have received such a review and all controlled documents are removed from the system. -- http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=40365The NTRS web site was taken offline on March 19. Government agencies are subject to political activities like this and budgetary limitations. Very bad things can happen which, in cases like this can remove from access, "all NASA technical documents, no matter how voluminous and valuable they are" in a single moment. Libraries should still be selecting, acquiring, organizing, and preserving information for their user-communities, and providing access to and services for those collections. Libraries do no one a long-term service by simply pointing to resources over which they have no control and which someone else can simply make unavailable literally at the flick of a switch. FDLP libraries should demand digital deposit from GPO and should actively select and acquire that digital public government information that is of value to their user communities that GPO cannot deposit because it is outside the scope of Title 44. Continue reading
CASSANDRA writes letter to Public Printer regarding the NAPA report
Last month the National Association of Public Administration (NAPA) released a report entitled "Rebooting the Government Printing Office: Keeping America Informed in the Digital Age" -- FGI responded with an analysis of the report and were particularly disturbed by recommendation #4 which said that GPO should consider "cost recovery" for access to FDsys. A group of long-time government information librarians writing under the moniker of CASSANDRA (Concerned Government Information Professionals), have co-written a letter to Public Printer Davita Vance-Cooks offering their strong support for NAPA's conclusion that "free access to government information is both an important tenet of a democracy and a critical responsibility" while calling into question the same recommendation #4. With CASSANDRA's permission (FYI, both Jim Jacobs and James Jacobs are signatories to this letter), we've posted the letter here for public knowledge and so that others may also write letters to the Public Printer and cite this letter in support of free permanent public access to authentic government information now and in the long-term.
Comparing Hathitrust and Google Books as repositories of government documents
Here are 2 recent items analyzing Hathitrust and Google books for their efficacy in giving access to Federal government documents. The first is an article by Laura Sare (Texas A&M) and compares Hathitrust with Google Books. The second is a presentation by Brian Vetruba (Washington U in St Louis) at "Leveraging Your Strengths: Regional Government Documents Conference" at the Federal Reserve Bank St. Louis on May 4, 2012. A Comparison of HathiTrust and Google Books Using Federal Publications. Laura Sare. Practical Academic Librarianship: The International Journal of the SLA Academic Division. 2(1) 2012 p. 1-25. (attached below. Fair use claim)
Wait! Don’t Digitize and Discard! A White Paper on ALA COL Discussion Issue #1a
June 21, 2013 / 6 Comments on Wait! Don’t Digitize and Discard! A White Paper on ALA COL Discussion Issue #1a
[UPDATE 6/27: COL's final report is now available online. We've added a link to it below along with the draft report] We here at FGI are all for greater access to government information and have long supported and worked toward a fully digital FDLP. When discussing the future of the FDLP, we believe it is important to create policy based on thorough fact-based analysis, to learn from FDLP history and not repeat mistakes which in the past led to benign neglect of documents collections -- many of which were borne out of trying to handle government documents collections on the cheap. For example, lack of adequate cataloging, one of our biggest current problems today, is a direct result of libraries not investing sufficiently in describing FDLP collections. Continue reading →
Continue Reading →