Tell National Archives, Congress that working people need access too!
Thanks to LISNews for reporting on a proposed reduction in hours at the main National Archives reading room:
Our research center and Central Research Room in the National Archives Building and the research rooms at the National Archives at College Park facility are currently open for research Monday through Friday from 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m.; on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday evenings from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.; and Saturdays from 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. This interim final rule would eliminate Saturday hours and change the research room hours to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays, more closely reflecting NARA official business hours in those facilities. The new research room hours are specified in §§ 1253.1(a) and 1253.2(b). We are also amending § 1253.8 since we no longer will have Saturday hours.According to the LISNews article, President Richard Pearce-Moses of the Society of American Archivists offered testimony in favor of some extended hours:
NARA held a public hearing last Thursday, 3 August. I spoke on behalf of the Society of American Archivists, expressing concern that this was a serious barrier to public access. Restricting reading room hours to business hours requires that many, maybe most, members of the public must take time off from work to use the collections. The effect is that they may have to pay for access in terms of lost wages. While I'm sure all archivists appreciate the challenges of budgets and the costs of extended hours, I believe it is essential for NARA to find some means to retain some extended hours. One option would be to remain open evenings or weekends, rather than both. Archivist Weinstein commented that he was committed to the principle of access to records. In other comments, the Archivist noted that public input would be a factor in the final determination of hours.In support of their rule change, NARA notes the small percentage of researchers who use NARA facilities after normal business hours. But thanks to the vast number of people who come to NARA for research purposes, this still impacts thousands of researchers. By NARA's own figures, 18,719 people did in-person research either at NARA's main building or at their Park Facility either on Saturdays or during evening hours in 2005. It's probably a fair assumption that most of these people came during these extended hours because that's when they were able to. Why should we exclude thousands of working people from access to government records? We shouldn't be. Why should we force thousands of people to choose between wages and researching the records their tax dollars helped collect and process? We shouldn't be. In the LISNews article, Richard Pearce-Moses offers these ways to comment:
You can help make the case for the importance of public access to public records by submitting comments online at http://www.regulations.gov. For the agency, select National Archives and Records Administration all. In the Keyword, type hours. Click submit, and you'll see an icon for adding comments. You can also send comments by fax (301-837-0319) or by mail to Regulations Comments Desk (NPOL), Room 4100, Policy and Planning Staff, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001.In addition to Richard's suggestions, I'd like to suggest that you copy your Congressional delegation on any comments made to NARA, plus suggest an increase for the National Archives budget. Try to suggest a decrease somewhere else. For ideas, try the Citizens Against Government Waste web site, or the US Budget on GPO Access. Continue reading
Not Just Blogs: Issues – Authenticity
Last week we began a tour of the Free Government Information web site. Today we stop at our authenticity page, which can be found by clicking on issues near the top of the main FGI page:
Then by clicking on Authenticity:
This page is an essay by James A. Jacobs which suggests that the problem of authenticity is more of a social problem than a technological problem. In part he says:
Trust is the social part of the solution But this technological check does not solve the authentication problem by itself. The check against the hash is only as reliable as the trusted third party. The software just gives us a technical means of shifting who we trust -- instead of trusting the party that delivered the document to us, for example, we trust a third party that tells us that the hash is correct and authentic. If the hash isn't authentic and unchanged, the check against the hash is worthless. This concept of a trusted third party is, therefore, an essential component of the authentication chain. That should lead us to an important question: who will we choose as our trusted third parties? This is important because the tools only work if we can trust the third party to do its job. In the case of government information essential to our democracy, this trust has to last forever.For the complete essay, along with supporting links, please see the Authenticity issue page. If you do read the essay, would you come back and comment? Especially on the basic concept that we need a "trusted third party" whose survival is not at the whim of the Government? Next week we'll continue our web site tour with an examination of our issues "preservation" page. Continue reading
Part 13: Nonlawyer’s journey through Title 44: Printing and sale of extra copies of documents
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. Today we consider 44 USC 1706, which states:
TITLE 44--PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS CHAPTER 17--DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS Sec. 1706. Printing and sale of extra copies of documents The Public Printer shall furnish to applicants giving notice before the matter is put to press, not exceeding two hundred and fifty to any one applicant, copies of bills, reports, and documents. The applicants shall pay in advance the price of the printing. The printing of these copies for private parties may not interfere with the printing for the Government. (Pub. L. 90-620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1279.) Historical and Revision Notes Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., Sec. 114 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, Sec. 42, 28 Stat. 607; June 30, 1932, ch. 314, Sec. 307, 47 Stat. 409).This is another section of the law where I needed some extra help in interpreting it, so I consulted with my favorite Title 44 expert. Paraphrasing what she told me, this section allows people or companies who are aware that a given document is going to published to purchase up to 250 copies prior to the Government Printing Office (GPO) deciding whether that given item will be sold through the Sales Program. Apparently not everything is. Sometimes these are standing orders – like someone wanting a printed copy of everything produced by the Judiciary Committee. It is my understanding that few firms take advantage of this provision, and my source believes there is nothing objectionable about this practice. I don't see anything wrong with it either. If there are any mistakes made above, you can assume they are mine and not those of the person I consulted. One thing I didn't ask about is how people who don't have standing orders get notified of upcoming documents. Anyone out there know about that? Next time, which should be next week, we'll look at the portion of Title 44 that allows GPO to make reprints of government documents. Nice to know that some documents were popular enough to require multiple printings! Continue reading
Check out The Gov Doc
Washoe County Library System librarian Ian Campbell has started a new blog called The Gov Doc that looks like it will deal with local, state and federal documents of interest to Nevadans and others. In his first entry, Ian says:
Blogging is new to me and I will be working and learning to make this an informational site for postings on new developments in federal, state, and local government publications, both in book and electronic formats.With about a post a week so far, Ian seems to be well on his way to realizing his goals. I especially appreciate his intention to "link to a local document of current interest at least once a week" because local documents are usually the hardest to come by. Thanks Ian, for reaching out to your users and the rest of us in this way! The blog is located at http://washoegovtakes.blogspot.com/ and the RSS feed is http://washoegovtakes.blogspot.com/atom.xml if you'd like to subscribe to it through Bloglines. I have. Continue reading
Harris Corp Gets FDsys Contract
Harris Corporation of Melbourne, FL has been awarded the contract for GPO's Future Digital System (FDsys). You can read about the award, announced on August 4, in several places: - GPO's FDsys Blog - GPO's Press Release and Fact Sheet [PDF] - Federal Computer Week article - Government Computer News article Continue reading