Journal of Government Information, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 391-402, 1994 Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

1352-0237/94 $6.00 + XI0

Pergamon

1352-0237(94)00015-8

MEASURING THE EFFECT OF U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR A-l30: A CASE STUDY*

TED D. SMITH** Documents Reference Librarian, Knight Library, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA

Internet: tedsmith@darkwing.uoregon.edu

Abstract - The Office of Management and Budget plays a significant role in federal information policy. This paper presents a case study that measures the effect of OMB Circular A-130 on the publishing program of a specific agency, the U.S. Department of Labor. The study suggests that A-130 was a contributing factor in a decline in service publications coupled with a smaller increase in administrative publications and that such a result may have been an outcome desired by the framers of the policy. The author concludes that while Reagan administration information policies may have been effective in the short run in reducing publications that the policy makers would consider “unnecessary,” the long-term effect is uncertain.

Keywords-Information policy, Reagan, Department of Labor, Monthly Catalog, A-130

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, one of the major concerns of specialists in and some users of government information has been the perception that the federal government has retreated from the concept of access to government information as a public good. The Reagan administration in particular was faulted for suggesting that government should reduce its role as an active disseminator of information, relying instead on private-sector distribution to meet the public’s need for information about the activities of government. Rather than viewing government information as a resource to be widely disseminated for the betterment of society, executive decisions during the 1980s and early 1990s seemed to view government information as a commodity, to be produced and sold by the government on a cost- recovery basis.

This change in government policy was perceived by many as representing a departure from the principles implicit in the U.S. depository library program, which has long served as a major component of the government’s program of disseminating the information it produces. Dating back to the Printing Act of 1895 (28 Stat. 601), the goal of the depository program has been to make a variety of publications available to the public, ranging from

* The author would like to thank Dr. John V. Richardson, Jr., Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of California, Los Angeles, whose teaching inspired the original research and whose encouragement helped ensure that the work was completed. ** Ted Smith was formerly Assistant Librarian in the Government Publications and Microforms Department at the University of California, Irvine. An earlier version of this paper was awarded the Beta Phi Mu, Beta Beta Alpha Chapter Outstanding Student Paper Award for 1992.

391

392 T. D. SMITH

information about the government and how it works to products designed strictly to enlighten people about matters they might find useful in their daily lives. As a result of this longstanding role in the dissemination of government information, librarians have come to see themselves as having a major stake in federal information policy as it has developed over the past decade.

A key element in the shift that has taken place in government information policy in recent years has been an increasing role by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in setting policy for the executive branch’s information-producing and -dissemination activities. OMB has sought to exert control over information policy through issuance of policy circulars that provide guidelines for executive agencies to follow in their publication and public-information programs. One of the most significant of these policy circulars was OMB Circular A- 130, “Management of Federal Information Resources” [ 11. This circular has generated much comment, both within the information professions and elsewhere, about the impact of the policies it promulgates as they have affected the availability of government information.

To date, little empirical research has been performed to determine the actual effect A- 130 had on government information programs. With the election of William Clinton as President in 1992, government information policy is once again undergoing major revisions, including the recent promulgation of a revised Circular A-130 [2]. Yet, even while govern- ment agencies, the information professions, and the users of government information seek to adjust to the new policies, there is still little evidence of the actual effects of the old policies, as embodied in the original OMB directive. This paper reports on a study measur- ing the impact of Circular A- 130 on the publication program of the U.S. Department of Labor.

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The statutory authority for OMB’s involvement in government information policy was contained in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1980 (94 Stat. 2812). The act gave broad powers to the director of OMB with respect to the handling of federal information, and created the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in order to accomplish the goal of effective control of information policy by the OMB [3]. Conceived by Congress as a means to control the paperwork burden imposed on the government and the American people by numerous laws and regulations, the PRA has been the single most important catalyst in establishing OMB’s preeminent role in the management of federal informa- tion policy [4].

With the authority granted by Congress, OMB under the Reagan administration focused on ways in which the federal government could control costs associated with information activities and promoted the philosophy of privatization of government information activi- ties, a philosophy the Reagan administration applied to many areas of governmental activity. This focus is amply illustrated by public statements made by OMB officials, as well as the language used in the various policy circulars. Electronic technology, for example, is seen as a tool to achieve efficiency [5] rather than as a means to provide better information access, and any dissemination of information was to be “efficient, effective and economical” [6]. Some OMB spokesmen went so far as to say that active dissemination of information by an agency was authorized only when it was specifically mandated by law; otherwise, such active dissemination was characterized as illegal because it put the agency in competition with private interests [7].

OMB policies based on the authority provided by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 were promulgated through a series of policy circulars. By far the most comprehensive of

The effect of OMB Circular A-130 393

these was OMB Circular A-130, which sought to provide a general policy framework for federal information resources and to consolidate and revise policies previously set forth in several OMB directives, including A-71- “Responsibilities for the Administration and Management of Automated Data Processing Activities”; A-108-“Responsibilities for the Maintenance of Records about Individuals by Federal Agencies”; and A-121-“Cost Accounting, Cost Recovery and Inter-agency Sharing of Data Processing Facilities” [8]. Circular A-130 set out a variety of policies for the handling of government information. The most significant of these policies for purposes here were:

l Agencies shall create or collect only that information necessary for agency functions or of practical utility.

l They shall disseminate only such information products as are required by law or are necessary for the proper performance of agency functions.

l They shall do so in the most cost-effective manner possible, placing maximum possible reliance upon the private sector.

l They shall ensure that government documents are made available to depository libraries as required by law [9].

This last provision was not contained in the first draft of the Circular published on March 15, 1985, but was added as a result of comments made by librarians in response to the draft circular [ 101.

LIBRARY CONCERNS AND REACTION

The reaction of the library profession to the policies established by OMB, and to A- 130 in particular, was one of alarm. The American Library Association (ALA) expressed concern that the depository system would experience a loss of materials due to the elimination of government documents and publication programs resulting from the policies contained in the circular [ 111. Indeed, the Association expressed the belief that A-130 established policies that would contribute to the curtailment of government efforts to collect and disseminate information [12]. Concern about the perceived trend in federal policy away from open access to government information had prompted ALA to issue, even before A-130 was published, a chronology detailing government actions that impeded information access [13]. Major portions of the chronology dealt with the effects of OMB policies.

Individual members of the profession were even more emphatic in their protests. Some of the objections focused on specific concerns such as the effect on the depository library program, the cost of access to government-produced electronic databases, and uncertainty over the vagueness of the definitions and terms used in the circular [14]. Others made reference to the broad societal implications of the new policy. To give one example, Hernon asserted that the information delivery system called for by A-130 would favor more articulate citizens with financial resources to seek out the information they need [ 151. Such an effect would exacerbate the already large gap between information rich and information poor. In a more general sense, many in the library and information science community expressed dismay with the overall tone of the circular, specifically the fact that the focus seemed to be entirely on cost savings in information activities, with no consideration given to the value that government information has as a resource.

THE MISSING EVIDENCE

While librarians led the fight to make OMB policies more sympathetic to the needs of libraries and users of government information, there has been little study of the actual

394 T. D. SMITH

impact of OMB’s information policy on the depository library system. What exists is mostly the accumulation of anecdotal evidence, such as that done by ALA in its Less Access to Less Information series. The reaction from librarians has been based on the perception that policies such as those proposed by A-130 have had the effect of restricting access to government information, either by reducing the output of publications by the various federal agencies or by creating barriers to access such as user fees or privatization of government information products. However, empirical evidence is needed to determine the actual impact of A-130. With a better understanding of how the policies affected the kinds of publications in the depository library program, librarians can be better prepared to handle problems that result and to formulate stronger arguments against OMB policies such as A-130 when they have a negative effect on the public’s ability to gain access to information.

METHODOLOGY

This study examines the extent to which the publication program of a specific cabinet- level agency of the federal government was affected by the directives issued in OMB Circular A-130. The methodology employed was that of a case study, counting the pub- lished output of the target agency (as cataloged in the Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications) in the last year before the Circular was published (1984) and in the first full year in which the publication program would have been fully affected by the Circular’s directives (1987). One cannot expect such a study be definitive, but it provides some clues to what the effects of OMB policies were.

The agency selected for the study was the U.S. Department of Labor. Given the broad variety in the missions and activities of the various cabinet level departments, it is perhaps unrealistic to select a single representative department. Labor was chosen for this study for several reasons. First, its publication program was broad and varied, and many of its publications have great relevance for both scholars and the general public. Department of Labor publications such as Occupational Outlook Handbook and Dictionary of Occupa- tional Titles are known to many Americans, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics is an important producer of statistical information. Secondly, one of the major problems with the administration of the depository library program has been the chronic lack of compliance by many executive agencies with the requirement to submit publications to the Government Printing Office (GPO) for publication. While there is a scarcity of documentation as to the degree of compliance among the various executive departments, one study found the Department of Labor to be one of only four agencies the non-GPO publications of which had been brought into the depository distribution system [16]. Also, the department has been identified as one of 10 federal agencies concerned with domestic social welfare issues that have been the focus of strict OMB control over the agencies’ regulatory process [17]. Such an agency provides a good focus for the current study for the relevance of its publication program to a variety of library users, for its history of relatively good participa- tion in the depository program, and for its status as the subject of special OMB scrutiny.

To measure the impact of A-130 on particular kinds of publications, it was necessary to develop a taxonomy to classify the Department of Labor’s output. The scheme selected was that originally formulated by Merritt in 1943 [18]. Merritt proposed that government publications can be categorized by theirfunction, as well as by subject. The six functional categories he established were: legislative, administrative, reportorial, service, research, and informational [ 191. The basis for this classification scheme is that each publication is created for a specific, identifiable purpose (function) that constitutes a useful way in which to classify the publication itself.

The effect of OMB Circular A-130 395

Merritt’s taxonomy was later used as the basis for Weech’s functional analysis of state government publications [20]. The fact that the scheme has been successfully used in more than one study indicates that it is an appropriate tool for classifying government publications. The definitions provided for the six functional categories by Merritt and Weech form the basis for the taxonomy used in this study.

By definition, publications having the legislative function can be published only by the legislative branch of government [21], so that category was not included in this study. The five remaining categories were operationally defined for purposes of this study as listed below.

l Administrative-Publications that aid the process of public administration. This category includes publications that promulgate rules and regulations, directories, procedural man- uals, planning guides, and publications that instruct the public on how to comply with specific regulations.

l Reportorial-Publications that report a completed task or activity or on the progress of an ongoing activity. This category includes the results of investigations, and the decisions of boards, commissions, etc.

l Service-Publications that provide useful information to individuals or groups of people but do not meet the criteria for inclusion in any other category. This category includes general interest materials and statistical compilations (unless the statistics were on the Department itself, in which case it would be classified as “administrative,” or were subjected to statistical analysis, in which case the classification would be “research”).

l Research-Publications based on research conducted by or under the direction of the agency. This category includes studies of the effects of specific governmental programs and other sociological studies, as well as scientific research.

l Informational-Publications that inform the public of the nature and activities of the agency or promote the image of the agency and its services.

SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE MONTHLY CATALOG

While not a comprehensive record of all the publications the government produces, the Monthly Catalog offers a well-defined, finite universe that allows for meaningful comparisons between two time periods, and it at least approximates the level of output from the GPO to the depository libraries. There are, however, some difficulties associated with using the Monthly Catalog, arising from longstanding problems of time lag between publication and cataloging, as well as the issue of “fugitive” documents that never make it into the depository system.

Research has documented that there can be significant delays between the actual publica- tion of a document and its inclusion in the Monthly Catalog. In one such significant study, Daniel and Robinson found that in a sample of publications taken from the 1972 Monthly Catalog, the average time lag between publication and inclusion in the catalog for Depart- ment of Labor publications was 5.5 months [22]. More recently, Mooney found that there is an average time lag of 6.3 months between the distribution of publications to depositories and entry into the Monthly C&dog [23], and that the mean time lag for Department of Labor publications was 10.1 months [24].

In order to control for the possible effects of such a time lag, two different sets of catalog entries for Department of Labor publications were analyzed. The first set consisted of publications originating from the Department of Labor or any of its subordinate agencies and cataloged in the Monthly Catalog in either of two targeted years: 1984 and 1987. Each publication was assigned by the researcher to a functional category based on the entry in

396 T. D. SMITH

the Monthly Catalog. Since subject headings are included in the catalog entries and the titles of government publications are usually quite indicative of the subject and purpose of the publications, it was usually clear from examining the entry in the Monthly Catalog what constituted the proper category for a given publication, As a verification of consis- tency, a college-educated assistant, not trained in librarianship, was given instruction on the classification scheme and given a sample of publications to classify. The incidence of agreement between the two classifiers was over 90 percent, indicating a high level of consistency in assignment of categories using just the catalog entries. In case of disagree- ment between the two classifiers, the actual publication was examined to determine more precisely its purpose. The author made the final decision as to where to classify agiven item.

For the second set of publications, all publications from the 1987 Monthly Catalog that had a publication data prior to 1986 (and thus prior to the implementation of Circular A- 130) were discarded. They were replaced by Department of Labor publications that were published in 1987 but appeared in the Monthly Catalog in 1988-1993 (through June 1993). To provide a like group for comparison, the same adjustments were made to the 1984 group. All publications in the 1984 catalog that were published prior to 1983 were discarded and replaced by those published in 1984 but not cataloged until later.

The null hypothesis for the study was that whatever effect OMB Circular A-130 had on the published output of the Department of Labor for this period would be spread equally among the functional categories. The alternate hypothesis is that there would be a difference in the effect of OMB policies on different categories of publications. Statistical tests were employed to disprove the null hypothesis.

RESULTS

The results from the first study (of publications actually cataloged in the subject years) are summarized in Table 1. The table shows that there was a decline of 23.5 percent in the total number of publications from one year to the other, with three of the five categories showing declines and two showing increases. The decrease in one category alone (service publications) was greater than the aggregate decline, indicating that the total of nonservice publications actually increased slightly in the later year.

The statistical test used to test the null hypothesis was chi-square. The values used to compute chi-square are summarized in Table 2. In the table, F,, indicates the frequency observed in the second set (1987) and Fe indicates the frequency expected based on the percentages that had been observed for 1984.

Considering four degrees of freedom and a level of significance of .Ol , the critical value for chi square is 13.227. Thus, the computed value of chi-square is greater than the critical value and the null hypothesis can be rejected. The results indicate that there is a statistically

Table 1. Tally of publications by functional category

Category 1984 1987 Difference % change

Administrative 58 63 +5 + 8.6% Reportorial 19 23 +4 +21 % Service 231 149 -82 - 35.5% Research 11 6 -5 -45.5% Informational 17 16 -1 -5.9% Aggregate 336 257 -79 -23.5%

The effect of OMB Circular A-130 397

Table 2. Values to compute chi-square*

% of total in Category 1984 F, F,

Administrative 17.26 Reportorial 5.65 Service 68.75 Research 3.27 Informational 5.05 Totals 100.00

* Chi-square = 18.093.

63 44 23 15

149 177 6 8

16 13 257 257

significant difference in the publication pattern of the Department of Labor for 1987 as compared to 1984.

Carrying the analysis a step further, the output of a single category can be compared to all other categories of publications. In the case of service publications the data for computing chi-square would be:

Service % of ‘84: 68.75 F, = 149 Fe = 177 Nonservice % of ‘84: 31.25 F,, = 108 Fe = 80

The chi-square value computed as a result is 14.23. With 1 degree of freedom and using the chosen level of significance of .Ol, the critical value of chi-square is 6.635. Thus, the null hypothesis (that there would be no change in the percentage of service publications) can be rejected. There was a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of service publications in 1987 as compared to 1984.

Only one other category yields a chi-square result greater than the critical value. Admin- istrative publications had a chi-square value of 9.9, smaller than that for service publications but still significant. It is then concluded that the difference in the Department of Labor’s publication program in 1987 as compared to that in 1984 was that a significant decline in the number of service publications occurred along with a lesser, but still significant, increase in administrative publications.

For the second analysis, the subject years remain the same, but the definition of the universe of publications is changed. Now the universe is defined as those publications appearing in the Monthly Catalog for the subject year and published in that year or the year before, plus any items published in the subject year and appearing in the Monthly Catalog in any month through June, 1993.

The results of this second study are summarized in tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Tally of publications by functional category

Category 1984 1987 Difference % change

Administrative 77 98 +21 +27.3% Reportorial 24 26 +2 + 8.3% Service 413 292 -121 - 29.3% Research 13 15 +2 + 15.4% Informational 21 23 +2 +9.5% Aggregate 548 454 -94 - 17.1%

398 T. D. SMITH

Table 4. Values to compute chi-square*

% of total in Category 1984

Administrative 14.05 Reportorial 4.38 Service 75.36 Research 2.37 Informational 3.83 Totals 100.00

* Chi-square = 30.745

FL? F,

98 64 26 20

292 342 IS II 23 17

454 454

This second universe of publications is somewhat larger than the first owing to the fact that documents published in the year immediately prior to the base catalog year (a signifi- cant portion of any year’s Monthly Catalog entries) were not excluded. While there were a few variations in the pattern of publications between the two groups, the results of the statistical analysis were quite similar. Once again, the chi-square test shows a significant difference in the publications of the two years, with the result this time being an even greater number. Once again, a test of the chi-square value for each individual category of publications shows that the only statistically significant differences were an increase in administrative publications and a larger decrease in service publications. Table 5 provides a summary of chi-square values for each functional category compared to all other categories.

While the statistical test shows that there is a difference in the production of materials with a service function, it does nothing to indicate a cause. To rule out the possibility that some factor other than Circular A-130 may have caused the observed effect, several possibilities were examined. One possibility is that the decline in service publications was due to some publications becoming “fugitive” publications and no longer cataloged in the Monthly Catalog. To test for this possibility, a count was made, for the subject years, of the number of entries in the American Statistics Index (ASI) that do not indicate a depository- program item number. There were 77 such publications identified for 1984, and only 51 for 1987. This gives a strong indication that, whatever the cause of the observed differences in the study, it was not due to the escape of some publications from the depository system. If such had been the case, one would not expect to see a decline in the number of non- GPO entries in the ASZ.

A second possibility is that budgetary restraints may have caused a slowdown in publish- ing activity. A review of Department of Labor budget figures for fiscal years 1984 and 1987 shows that there was an increase of 5.39 percent in general appropriations for salaries and expenses for the Department of Labor and its subagencies, and an increase of 5.45

Table 5. Chi-square values for individual categories

Category Chi-square Critical value

Administrative 21.03 6.635 Reportorial 1.88 6.635 Service 26.93 6.635 Research 1.49 6.635 Informational 2.2 6.635 Total 30.745 13.277

The effect of OMB Circular A-130 399

percent in appropriations for printing [25]. The consumer price index (CPI-U) showed an increase of 8.9 percent between 1984 and 1987 [26]. So while the increase in budget for the Department did not quite keep pace with inflation during the period involved, the difference was not large enough to account for all of the observed changes in publica- tion patterns.

One is left to assume that the results obtained from the study can be attributed to OMB’s information policies in general, and to Circular A-130 in particular. Certainly, A-130 was the most significant directive regarding federal information policy that took place in the intervening time frame, and there is no other known reason why Department of Labor’s publication program would have changed over that period. It is reasonable to infer that OMB Circular A-130 played a significant role in causing the decrease in service publications that was observed.

Indeed, such a result may have been the intent of those drafting the circular. The circular itself states that federal agencies have the responsibility to disseminate certain types of information concerning: “what the agency does” (information function), “how its pro- grams operate” (reportorial function), “what the public must do to comply with laws and regulations” (administrative) and “how the public can use agency services” (informational) [27]. This leaves only research and service functions as likely targets for reduction or elimination. The study’s finding of a significant decline in service publications indicates that A-130 was in some respects an effective policy in furthering the Reagan administration’s conservative goals, in that the types of publications eliminated were exactly the ones not specified as necessary.

In order to establish a baseline and place the study in context, a count was made of the total Department of Labor entries in the Monthly Catalog for each year from 1980-1992. Items for years other than the target years of 1984 and 1987 were not classified using the Merritt taxonomy, but were merely counted to get an indication of the overall trend in the amount of publications produced by the Department of Labor during the 1980s. This helps to provide a contextual basis for the current study. The data on the total number of publications cataloged in the Monthly Catalog for the department in each year from 1980 to 1992 is shown in Table 6. The plus or minus sign beside the totals indicates the direction of change from the previous year. The third column represents a three-year rolling average, which is included as an indicator of the overall trend.

Table 6. Total Department of Labor publications 1980-1992

Year Total number Three-year average

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

394 386 (-) 584 (+) 561 (-) 336 (-) 234 (-) 362 (+) 257 (-) 328 (+) 431 (+) 508 (+) 540 (+) 554 (+)

454 510 (+) 493 (-) 377 (-) 310 (-) 284 (-) 315 (+) 338 (+) 422 (+) 493 (+) 534 (+)

400 T. D. SMITH

The only year in a five year period from 1983-1987 in which the cataloged output of the agency did not decline was 1986. Its occurrence in that particular year could be a mere aberration, or could reflect unknown factors. The overall trend is shown clearly by the three-year rolling averages. These figures indicate that, even with the surprisingly high output in 1986, the three-year period from 198.5-1987 was the nadir for the Department’s publication program in terms of number of items cataloged by GPO. It may be more than coincidental that this low point occurred during the time frame that A-130 was being published, debated, and implemented.

After 1987, the trend reverses, with each successive year showing an increase in the number of publications. This reversal of the downward trend that was evident from 1984 through 1987 was an unexpected result, and may indicate that while A-130 had a significant initial impact on Labor’s publication program, the effect may have been transitory. How- ever, it is also possible that other factors such as GPO’s backlog in processing microfiche shipments had some effect in producing this trend.

CONCLUSION

When Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 there was little realization that one result of the legislation would be a major confrontation between the library profession and the Office of Management and Budget over access to government informa- tion. That confrontation was one of the major themes in government information librarian- ship in the 198Os, and the battle over the original Circular A-130 was the most significant event in that confrontation.

The results of this study suggest that those who were fearful that OMB policies during the Reagan administration would lead to less government information being made available to Americans had cause for concern. OMB policies do seem to have reduced (at least temporarily) the number of certain types of publications available to the public through the depository library system. In particular, many fewer publications with a service func- tion were being disseminated, if the Department of Labor’s experience was at all typical. As previously mentioned, this result can be viewed as an indication that A-130 was an effective policy tool in that the language of the circular itself implies that such publications are the ones government agencies should not be in the business of producing.

The overall count of publications cataloged between 1980 and 1992 appears to indicate that the negative effect of OMB policy on published output was temporary. It is possible that the rebound in government publishing was the result of a more pragmatic, less ideological approach to information policy issues under the Bush administration. Bush’s appointee to head OMB, Richard Darman, was perhaps more flexible than his Reagan appointed predecessors 1281. Bush appointees in general may have been less ideologically committed to goals such as privatization, and agencies may have had more discretion over their publication programs [29].

Whether this trend is likely to persist under the Clinton administration is unclear. Many in the information professions have been cheered by language in the revision of Circular A-130 published since President Clinton took office, but Vice President Gore’s “National Performance Review” has specifically targeted GPO as one agency that might face cutbacks in funding. The proposal to give executive department agencies the authority to print and disseminate their own information products has particularly strong implications for the Depository Library Program [30].

While it is not likely that the protests of librarians and others concerned about access to government information had much overall impact on Reagan administration policies,

The effect of OMB Circular A-130 401

the concern expressed by librarians did produce some results with the inclusion in the final issuance of A-130 of a clause on use of the depository library system to disseminate information, and in the decision by OMB to withdraw a planned revision of A-130 in 1989. Both actions were primarily due to vocal opposition from librarians. Such opposition may have tempered OMB cutbacks in government information dissemination programs until the arrival of the still conservative, but less ideological Bush administration.

Obviously, the debate over the proper role of government in the information age is not over. Issues of privatization of government information resources, budgetary constraints, and technological change will continue as points of contention regardless of the ideology of the governing party. The general public remains largely indifferent to the issue of access and librarians still have much work to do in gaining acceptance of the principle that access to government information is a public good, with benefits to society that cannot be measured in strictly economic terms. Meanwhile, information professionals must con- tinue to study and discuss the proper role of government in a rapidly evolving informa- tion economy.

NOTES

1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18. 19. 20.

“Management of Federal Information Resources,” Federal Register 50, no. 247 (December 24, 1985) 52730. “Federal Information Resources Management (OMB Circular No. A-130), Revision: Notice,” Federal Register 58, no. 126 (July 2, 1993), 36068-86. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, U.S. Code, Title 44, section 3504 (b)(l). Charles R. McClure, Ann Bishop, and Philip Doty, “Federal Information Policy Development: The Role of the Office of Management and Budget, ” in United States Government Information Policies: Views and Perspectives, ed. Charles R. McClure, Peter Hernon, and Harold C. Relyea(Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1989), 54-55. J. Timothy Sprehe, “Developing a Federal Policy on Electronic Collection and Dissemination of Informa- tion.” Government Publications Review 11 (September/October 1984):357. Federal Register 50, no. 247, 52747. “FLICC Forum 1986: Federal Information Policy as Seen by Proponents and Opponents of OMB’s Circular A-130,” Library Journal 111 (March 15, 1986):ll. Federal Register, 50, no. 247, 52730. Federal Register, 50, no. 247, 52736. Carol Moody, “Circular A-130 and Its Effect on Federal Information Policy,” Show-Me Libraries 41 (Spring 1990):37. American Library Association, Washington Office, “Government Publications: An Endangered Species,” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science 12 (April/May 1986):32. “Government Publications: An Endangered Species,” 32. American Library Association, Less Access to Less Information By and About the U.S. Government: A 1981-1987 Chrono/ogy (Washington, DC: The Association, 1988) and subsequent updates. “OMB Moves to Manage Federal Information Resources,” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science 12 (February/March 1986):lO. Peter Hemon, “The Management of United States Government Information Resources: An Assessment of OMB Circular A-130,” Government Information Ouarterly 3. no. 3 (1986):287. Richard H. Leach, “A Broad Look at the Federal Government and Libraries,” in Libraries at Large: Tradition, Innovation and the National Interest, ed. Douglas M. Knight and E. Shepley Nourse (New York: R. R. Bowker and Co., 1969). 375. Steven L. Katz, Government Secrecy: Decisions Without Democracy (Washington, DC: People for the American Way, 1987), 69. L. C. Merritt, The United States Government as Publisher (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943). Merritt, 78-87. Terry L. Weech, “The Characteristics of State Government Publications, 1910-1969,” Government Publica- tions Review 1 (Fall 1973):29-51.

21. Merritt, United States Government, 79 and Weech, “Characteristics of State Government Publications,” 32. 22. W. Ellen Daniel and William C. Robinson, “Time Lag in the 1972 Month/v Catalog of United States

23.

24.

Government Publications,” Government Publications Review 3, no. 2 (1976): i 16. - ” Margaret T. Mooney, “GPO Cataloging: Is it a Viable Current Access Tool for U.S. Documents?” Govern- ment Publications Review 16 (May/June 1989):262. Mooney, 267.

402 T. D. SMITH

25.

26.

27. 28.

29. 30.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1986 (Washing- ton, DC: Government Printing Office, 1985) and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscul Year 1989 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1990). U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Business Statistics, 1963-1991 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992). 24. Federal Register 50, no. 247, 52147. Harold B. Shill, “Discussion Forum: Information Policy and the Bush Administration, A First Look,” Government Information Quarterly I, no. 1 (1990):3 Shill, 6.

-

U.S. Office of the Vice President, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better und Costs Less (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, l993), 55-56.