Obama names new Chief Information Officer

So Obama has named a CIO - Vivek Kundra. Here's the scoop -

From the NY Times.
Kundra speaks.
Lynn Sweet calls the new CIO Obama's E-Gov czar.
You know you've made it when you get a Wikipedia entry.

Federal depository libraries and the GPO

A lot of the readings on the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) talk about the future of the FDLP in the face of electronic information creation and dissemination (cf. Depository Library Council, 2006; Hernon & Shuler, 1996; Library Services and Content Management, 2009; Sudduth, 2008, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004, 2008). What I find interesting is how the E-Gov Act was passed in 2002, and 7 years later, we still don’t know what the role of the FDLP should be in the era of electronic government information. I know government moves slowly, but sheesh.

The mission of the FDLP is to ensure the American public has access to government information (Depository Library Council, 2006; Library Services and Content Management, 2009; Sudduth, 2008; U.S. Government Printing Office, n.d.) – an important responsibility if the American public is to have any knowledge of what’s going on in government (McDermott, 2006). In light of the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, the mission of the federal depository libraries is shifting from simple repositories to facilitators in the federal information dissemination process (Depository Library Council, 2006). Some (i.e. Sudduth) even question whether “…a federal depository program designed for the nineteenth- and twentieth-century paper environment provide[s] adequate access in a twenty-first-century electronic environment?” (Sudduth, 2008, p. 7)

The Depository Library Council (DLC) identifies a few key issues related to the need for structure and standardization of methods to handle electronic government information (2006) – notably document and metadata standards, public tools development, version control, authenticity of documents, and public education. I agree these are critical issues for the FDLP, but I would argue these issues transcend the FDLP to be critical to libraries and other information resource providers in general. These are issues related to ALL electronic information, not just government information, especially when one considers DLC’s remark in the conclusion that the American public is increasingly bypassing libraries when seeking all information.

While it is necessary and important to bring these issues to the attention of Congress in the context of federal government information, it is equally important to make it clear to legislators and others in power that these issues need to be addressed and resolved at a meta level – ALL electronic information rather than just electronic government information. There do seem to be others out there who agree with me, note that the Federal Depository Library Program Strategic Plan, 2009-2014 discusses the changes to library services in the digital environment in the context of ALL libraries, not just depository libraries (Library Services and Content Management, 2009).

Meanwhile, Hernon and Shuler identify 4 assumptions of the FDLP that need to be questioned and reevaluated (1996). I was especially taken with the fourth assumption, that depository libraries would expand collections and services as more publications and information become eligible for depository distribution. No mention of increased funding, I wonder why. Apparently so do Hernon and Shuler who subsequently ask if depository libraries can and will take on more of the cost burden as GPO is downsized (and note Sudduth’s figures (2008) – the estimated federal budget for FY 2007 included only $1.5 billion for producing, gathering, and preserving government information, a mere 0.056% of the entire federal budget). I am guessing in the economic climate where libraries barely get any funding, the answer to that is NO. Even if libraries wanted to take on more of the costs (and really, who ever wants to take on more cost?), they couldn’t!

References

Depository Library Council. (2006). “Knowledge will forever govern” A vision statement for federal depository libraries in the 21st century. Location: Depository Library Council. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/council/dlcvision092906.pdf

Hernon, P., & Shuler, J. A. (1996).The depository library program: another component of the access puzzle shifting to electronic formats. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.) Federal information policies in the 1990s: views and perspectives (pp. 259-278). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Library Services and Content Management. (2009). Federal Depository Library Program strategic plan, 2009-2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Library Services and Content Management. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.fdlp.gov/home/about/237-strategicplan

McDermott, P. (2007). Who needs to know? The state of public access to federal government information. Lanham, MD: Bernan.

Sudduth, W. (2008). Federal government information policy and the electronic federal depository library. In Andrea M. Morrison (Ed.), Managing Electronic Government Information in Libraries (pp. 3-13). Chicago: American Library Association.

U.S. Government Printing Office. (n.d). About the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) [Electronic resource]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://catalog.gpo.gov/fdlpdir/FDLPdir.jsp?mode=-2

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2004). A strategic vision for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Federal Depository Library Program, U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.fdlp.gov/home/about/237-strategicplan

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2008). Regional depository libraries in the 21st century: a preliminary assessment: final report to the Joint Committee on Printing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.fdlp.gov/home/about/209-studyofregionals

E-Government

Electronic government holds the promise of improved government services at reduced costs (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), but the challenge to fulfilling that promise is not minor. There are lots of tradeoffs to consider here, many of which relate to all electronic services, not just electronic government services.

Let’s take customization for example. People increasingly want customized, personalized services (West, 2008), but they do not necessarily understand what they have to give up to get them – total privacy. How do you maintain your privacy from the system (meaning not identifying who you are) while simultaneously asking the system to be customized for you. This is quite a conundrum. Either the system knows who you are and what your preferences are, thereby enabling personalization, or you remain anonymous. But then, if you are anonymous, the system cannot be personalized to your tastes.

There is also a tradeoff when asking systems to be more interactive and convenient but maintain your privacy. The FAFSA website (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) has been criticized for being a too complicated online process. Right now, students and their parents have to dedicate well over 30 minutes to completing this form online, when most of the information is the same information you have already sent to the IRS when you filed your taxes. Wouldn’t it be great to just click a button when submitting your taxes that says “Send My Tax Information to FAFSA”? I think so, but to do that, we are asking two federal agencies to share our information between them. And there are certainly privacy issues there. Once the IRS is sharing your tax information with FAFSA, it’s not too many steps for them to share it with other federal agencies. How far do we want to go in the name of convenience?

A possible answer lies in the idea of “opting in.” Opting in means each user chooses for himself or herself whether or not to provide the information necessary to personalize the system to his or her preferences. This way, users who wish to maintain their privacy can do so (at the expense of personalized content, of course), and users who wish to reveal some of their identities in exchange for personalization can do that.

References

National Archives and records Administration. (n.d.). E-Government Act of 2002 [Electronic resource]. College Park, MD: The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/egov-act-section-207.html

West, Darrell M. (2008). State and federal electronic government in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.