Government Publications Review, Vol. 19, pp. I I9- 123, I992 0277-9390192 $5.00 + .OO

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.

THE NEW HERESY: LIBRARIANS IN SUPPORT OF USER FEES A Viewpoint

J. TIMOTHY SPREHE Sprehe Information Management Associates, 1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 210, Washington, DC 20036

Abstract - This essay reviews the response of the library community to Reagan administration-initiated user fees for government information. Tensions inherent in trying to balance incentives for the production ofinformation and a rich information environment against philosophical concerns regarding cost of access are also addressed. Current legislative initiatives are used as focal points. The author sees eco- nomic and political pressures building that will make the library community face the question whether yesterday’s heresy will necessarily become today’s orthodoxy.

INTRODUCTION

In 198 1, the Reagan administration, newly arrived at the seat of government, looked around for fresh ways of doing things. Like all new administrations, they needed new reve- nues to finance some of their money-saving ideas. Raising taxes was out of the question; they had come to town to ease the burden on the taxpayer, not increase it.

Some bright Reaganauts had the idea of making those who benefit from certain govern- ment programs pay for them. After all, the reasoning went, some people enjoy these program services, but the great majority of the citizenry do not. The national parks, for example, are available to all, but only a small percentage actually visit the parks. Therefore, while the gen- eral treasury should continue to pay for creation and maintenance of the parks, the visitors should help defray some of the costs of on-site services by paying “reasonable” user fees. These were not taxes, went the nimble argument; user fees represented income from the pub- lic from voluntary business-like transactions classified as offsetting collections to offsetting outlays. This, at least, was the ideology behind the user fee movement within the Reagan administration.

OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-130

In 1984- 1985, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) developed the document that came to be known as OMB Circular No. A-l 30, Management of Federal Information Resources [ 11. In the draft circular issued for comment on March 15, 1985 [2], OMB placed emphasis on the cost-benefit aspects of government information activities and included a dictum that agencies should apply user fee concepts to government information products and services.

The response from the American library community was sharply negative. Eileen Cooke, Director of the American Library Association’s Washington office, wrote:

[T]he unimpeded flow of information is the life blood of research and develop- ment progress. Placing barriers on access by user charges will hamper that flow.

119

120 J. T. SPREHE

What cost is associated with restricted information access and dissemination scenario? What penalty will we pay if user charges are assessed without study and attention to the inhibiting role of user charges in information access and transmission in an R&D environment? Could we potentially be striking a sig- nificant blow-both economic and scientific-which would far outweigh the minor revenues gained by user charges? [3]

Cooke’s letter was one statement of the commonly expressed sentiment that user charges for government information represent a clear danger to some basic freedoms and should be approached with great caution. David Bender, Executive Director of the Special Libraries Association, wrote:

Application of user charges to recover costs of disseminating government informa- tion products or services must be evaluated carefully. Otherwise, a basic right of the nation’s citizens to be informed will be violated. The government exists to serve all the people, not just those who can afford to pay for information. [4]

The State Librarian of New York said: We think that careful study should precede setting user charges to insure that charges reflect only the access costs and not the entire expense ofa program. Iftaxpayers have already paid for the collection of information, they should not be charged again to get access to the results beyond the real costs of that access. [5]

These citations could be multiplied tenfold. If their letters to Congress and OMB are a fair indicator, in 1985 the nation’s librarians

were unanimous in opposing the application of the user fee ideology to government infor- mation. The librarians’ viewpoint, embodied in publications such as the American Library Association’s (ALA) Less Access to Less Information by and about the Federal Government, eventually carried the day. In 1989 OMB announced a new user fee policy for Circular No. A- 130, stating that user fees for information products should never be greater than the cost of dissemination [6]. The same policy was written into proposed legislation to reauthorize the Paperwork Reduction Act, the statutory basis for OMB Circular No. A- 130. Had it been passed into law, H.R. 3695, entitled the Paperwork Reduction and Federal Information Resources Management Act of 1990, would have authorized agencies specifically to reduce or waive user fees if so doing would enhance an agency mission, and would have prohibited agencies from establishing user fees for public information products that exceed the marginal cost of dissemination.

In 1990, however, Congress and the Bush administration also reached agreement on con- trolling the federal budget and reducing the deficit. Federal funds were tight in 1990, tighter in 199 1, and bleak for the future beyond. Once again user fees began to sing their siren song, but this time with curious outcomes.

In June 199 1, the House Merchant Marine Committee sought to offset revenue losses from a proposed repeal of the unpopular recreational boat use tax. The Committee’s formula for recouping the $7 18 million the tax would generate consisted of imposing a charge of 35 cents a minute (or $2 1 per hour) for online access to the Federal Maritime Commission’s Auto- mated Tariff Filing Information (ATFI) system. Not only would ATFI users have to pay, but any reseller of the ATFI database would also have to collect and remit the user fee. For once, the library community and the information industry spoke out with a single voice in vigorous opposition to the ATFI user fee proposal. Although motives doubtlessly differ, the informa- tion industry’s position has been remarkably consistent with the views of librarians and aca- demicians on the subject of user fees for government information.

GPO’S WIND0

The library community’s consistency of belief on user fees shattered in July 199 1. In that month the American Library Association, along with the Association of Research Libraries, Special Libraries Association, and American Association of Law Libraries announced their

Librarians in support of user fees 121

support for H.R. 2772, a bill titled the GPO Wide Information Network for Data Online Act of 199 1, or WINDO. H.R. 2772’s intent was to establish the Government Printing Office as “a single point of online public access to a wide range of federal databases containing public information stored electronically.” WIND0 was to be free to depository libraries; all others would pay user fees equal to approximately the “incremental cost” of dissemination.

The promotional materials handed out for the WIND0 bill by the ALA and the Joint Committee on Printing contained not a shred of evidence that the bill’s promoters had care- fully evaluated the effect of user fees on public access to federal databases. They contained no further explanations of what “incremental cost” might mean. In H.R. 3695 in the 10 1st Congress, a rough consensus had emerged that was summarized in the phrase “marginal cost of dissemination.” Incremental cost was an entirely new term carrying unknown freight.

The materials also contained no safeguards against the possibility that the proposed user fees could create an information rich and an information poor. The bill’s proponents were silent on what would happen if “incremental cost” became “very expensive.” It appeared that, in their haste to obtain free access for the depository libraries, the library associations had left behind their solemn-faced concerns about the imposition of user fees for government information products and services.

In the same month, Senator Pell introduced S. 14 16 “to provide adequate authority in the Library of Congress for the provision of fee-based library research and information products and services.”

This legislation will allow the Library of Congress to improve its financial manage- ment of these activities and to provide for fee services and products by such means as: providing expedited document delivery services including copying services, and special express delivery services; offering specialized search and bibliographic ser- vices from the Library’s unique databases for science, business, and industry; allow- ing public access to commercial and other fee service on-line computer files in the Library of Congress reading rooms; and providing training in specialized fields such as preservation and library service, including reference and research services. [7]

In this case, the library community reacted differently. While some associations remained silent, apparently not wishing to criticize the Library, others registered their objections. The American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) voiced a number of concerns:

-A concern that the Law Library of Congress will be called upon to generate a certain amount of revenue by providing advanced services from its specialists without a corre- sponding increase in the size of the staff.

-A concern that the Library of Congress fulfill its obligations under the Depository Library Program, something that the Library is not now fully accomplishing and that the current proposal seems only likely to aggravate through development of new pub- lications with non-appropriated funds.

-A concern about the apparent intention in this bill to raise the price of products from the cataloging and distribution services.

More fundamentally, AALL protested the major change in philosophy of service in pub- licly funded libraries that S. 14 16 represented. Pressure to find funds in today’s environment would lead to the shrinking of core services in preference to services that generate revenue.

All in all, one can see in this bill a future where many, if not most library services will have to generate fees. Those who are affluent, such as businesses, law firms, or others who can afford to pay, will be able to utilize the facilities of the library. Those who are not , will be relegated to using an ever decreasing range of “core service,”

In other words, AALL protested, the bill would create an information rich and poor, a con- cern not voiced in the WIND0 case [8].

Not surprisingly, the Information Industry Association (IIA) also entered the debate over

S.1416.

122 J. T. SPREHE

The heart of this proposal is clearly the authority to offer new products and services for which the Library can collect fees which exceed the marginal cost of dissemina- tion. We are unable to support this provision because we believe it is contrary to the public interest for any government entity-especially the Library of Congress-to fund government activities through the sale of information products and services, Such activity diminishes public access to government information. encourages gov- ernment to undertake revenue-generating activities to the detriment of appropria- tion-funded activities, and permits the government entity to evade the Congressional oversight that accompanies the use of appropriations. [9]

Again it is interesting that HA’s reasoning closely parallels that of the library associations in an earlier day.

And again there is no evidence that the Library of Congress has considered the deleterious effects that the proposed user fee arrangements could have upon the very mission of the Library. The Library seems to view the desired user fee authorities as a panacea for securing new sources of off-Budget revenue. It has not contemplated the possibility that user fees could instead be a Pandora’s box.

CONCLUSION

In general, user fee authorities, particularly if they are as broadly couched as S. 14 16 con- templated, hold the potential for altering the incentive systems under which institutions con- duct their business. They introduce into public bureaucracies the spirit of entrepreneurial- ism, the lure of making a buck with which to expand one’s programs. User fees work well only when they are carefully defined and narrowly circumscribed. Neither ofthese conditions is met in the WIND0 bill and S. 14 16.

User fees for government information products and services, however, are arguably differ- ent from other kinds of user fees because government information is different from other goods and services. Government information is different basically because of the first amend- ment to the Constitution and the broad public policy prohibition against erecting barriers to government information access. The critical test for any user fee arrangement for govern- ment information is whether the fee presents a barrier to public access. Neither the WIND0 nor the Library of Congress proposal has yet considered, let alone passed, this test.

Taken more broadly, WIND0 and S. 14 16 are indicators of new dilemmas for the library community. Funding for public information programs is perhaps more constricted at the present time than it has been for many years. At the state and local levels as well as the federal, governments are turning in large numbers toward user fees as new sources of revenue. Many of these governments have made substantial investments in geographic information systems, for example, and these systems have immediate commercial potential. Many of these gov- ernments are more than willing to cash in on that potential.

The 1990s seem likely to witness a major movement toward commercial sale of govern- ment information products and services and hence the proliferation of user fee schemes. Government documents librarians especially will have to choose between adherence to the lofty principles enunciated in the past and accommodation to the harsh budget realities of the present. They will have to face the question whether yesterday’s heresy regarding public access is to become today’s orthodoxy.

NOTES

I. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “OMB Circular No. A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources.” Fdwzl Regism 50, no. 247 (December 24, 1985): 52730-5 1.

2. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Draft Circular on the Management of Federal Information Resources.” F&d Register 50, no. 5 1 (March 15, 1985): 10734-47.

Librarians in support of user fees 123

3. Eileen D. Cooke, Director, Washington Office. American Library Association, Washington, DC, to J. Timothy Sprehe, May 14, 1985. Letters of comment were made available for public inspection by OMB.

4. David Bender, Executive Director, Special Libraries Association, Washington, DC, to J. Timothy Sprehe. May 13, 1985.

5. Joseph F. Shubert, State Librarian and Assistant Commissioner for Libraries, New York State Education Depart- ment, Albany, New York, to J. Timothy Sprehe, May 15, 1985.

6. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Advance Notice of Further Policy Development on Dissemination of Information,” Federal Register 54, no. 2 (January 4. 1989). 214-20; U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Second Advance Notice of Further Policy Development on Dissemination of Information,” Fcdmzl Rqjster 54, no. I14 (June 15, 1989). 25554-59.

7. Senator Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), “ S. 1416,” Congre.~sionalRecord (27 June 1991) daily ed.. S9003. 8. Robert L. Oakley, Washington Representative, American Association of Law Libraries, to Adoreen McCormick,

Library of Congress, June 10, 199 I. 9. Kenneth B. Allen, Senior Vice President for Government Relations, Information Industry Association, to Don-

ald C. Curran. Library of Congress, May 15. I99 I.