Library Juice 5:25, July 25, 2002


  1. New URL for FTF website
  2. Zoia Horn wins Jackie Eubanks Memorial Award
  3. WTO statement on public services under GATS
  4. Defend coordinated printing of Gov Docs
  5. Fighting Executive Order 13233
  6. The Memory Hole keeps scarce knowledge alive
  7. Call for Papers - AEQ: "The Many Faces of Information Competence"
  8. Links

Quote for the week:

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the
transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
-- Patrick Henry

Homepage of the week: Debra Colchamira


1. New URL for FTF website

The ALA/SRRT Feminist Task Force website has a new URL:

Please update your links.

2. Zoia Horn wins Jackie Eubanks Memorial Award

For Immediate Release

Marie Jones - 423-439-4336

July 2002

Zoia Horn wins Jackie Eubanks Memorial Award

The 2002 winner of the Jackie Eubanks Memorial Award is Zoia Horn.
Presented annually by the Alternatives In Publication Task Force of the
American Library Association's (ALA) Social Responsibilities Round Table,
the award honors an individual(s) for outstanding advocacy for achievement
in promoting the acquisition and use of alternative materials in
libraries, including developing specialized collections and actively
participating in professional organizations. This year's award, $500 and
a plaque, was presented at the 2002 ALA Annual Conference in Atlanta, at
the Alternative in Publication's Free Speech Buffet. Accepting on Horn's
behalf was her long-time mentor, Ilse Moon.

"The Eubanks Memorial Award Committee is honored to bestow this award on
Ms. Horn for her many efforts in the cause of intellectual freedom," said
Committee Chair Byron Anderson. "Her actions helped keep library
collections open, facilitating the way for getting material from
alternative presses into libraries."

Horn, now retired, was a long-time librarian who took on a variety of
activist roles related to her skills as a librarian, including 15 years as
a volunteer at DataCenter. Horn was DataCenter's first professional
librarian, and the extensive library promoted public interest research and
journalism and made possible citizen action on vital public policy
questions. DataCenter grew from the North American Congress on Latin
America and was founded to research and provide reliable information on
the political economy of the Latin American countries. DataCenter issued
reports and a series of Third World Resource Directories published by
Orbis Books.

Horn helped found the Coalition for the Right to Know (1980), established
to address a citizen's right to know in a democratic society. She became
an activist in attacking barriers to information, from library fees to the
consolidation of publishing houses. She served on the ALA Council from
1973 to 1975 and during this time proposed a number of resolutions
addressing barriers to information. She was appointed to the ALA
Intellectual Freedom Committee in 1977 by Eric Moon, and while there
established the Coalition on Government Information, formed to address the
elimination and privatization of information during the Reagan years. She
also has written her memoirs, "Zoia! Memoirs of Zoia Horn, Battler for the
People's Right to Know" (McFarland, 1995).



[MEMBER-FORUM:3142] Re: FBI and....
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:31:47 -0400
From: Mark Rosenzweig <iskra[at]>
To: member-forum[at]
Reply to: member-forum[at]

Dear Ruth G,

I was honored to present an award to Zoia Horn at this last
conference on behalf of the Alternatives-in-Publication task Force of
SRRT (the Jackie Eubanks Award, endowed by Sanford Berman).

Ilse Moon, herself a longtime intellectual freedom activist in ALA,
accepted the award on Zoia's behalf and gave younger librarians and
publishers some idea of Zoia's heroism and commitment as a

Of course, to answer your question, I believe you thought of Zoia
Horn because, in connection with the case of the Harrisburg Seven in
1971, Zoia Horn, at the age of 54, and self described as "a proper
lady-librarian" at Bucknell, refused to testify in the case of
Fathers Philip & Dan Berrigan and other anti-war activists who had
been indicted in a fabricated conspiracy case cooked up by the FBI's
J. Edgar Hoover. In refusing to testify against them she went to jail.

The late Eqbal Ahmed, a renowned Pakistani scholar, who was among the
indicted, asked her in the court hallway, "Why are you doing this?
You don't need to!" Zoia believed differently.She HAD to do it
because she believed as a librarian and citizen in freedom of
thought, freedom of association and freedom of speech

"Your Honor -- it is because I respect the function of the court to
protect the rights of the individual that I must refuse to testify. I
cannot in my conscience lend myself to such a black charade." She was
cut off at that point by the judge who yelled "Take her away!" Her
stay in Dauphin County jail was 20 days.

Mark Rosenzweig
ALA Councilor at large

>When I read about the noble G-men entering libraries for any number of
>reasons--some quite illegal--my first thought was, "Shades of Zoia Horn."
>Anyone old enough to recall why I thought this?
>BIG grandma
>"You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass
>the guilty." Jessica Mitford (1917-1996)

3. WTO statement on public services under GATS

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 03:43:52 -0400
From: Mark Rosenzweig <iskra[at]>
To: jberry[at], ALA Council List <alacoun[at]>
Cc: srrtac-l[at], plgnet-l[at], member-forum[at]
Reply to: iskra[at]

Thank you to John W. Berry for forwarding this message below from IFLA to
ALA Council (it should be forwarded to Member-Forum as well, which I am
doing now), and thanks , too, to Ron Shimmon of IFLA for recognizing ALA's
concerns about the WTO & GATS and their impact on libraries.

The message forwarded by Mr. Shimmon, however, is not altogether

First of all, naturally, the press release Mssrs.. Shimmon and Berry bring
to our attention, coming from the Director-general of the WTO, is, as one
might have expected, the rejection of their being any basis for our

Our fears, however, are for public services (i.e.not necessarily
"government services" narrowly defined, or possibly defined in a manner
which, in the US and other countries, means only "national
government"services --in the US, Federal government-- services). There is
much ambiguity and room for interpretation here in the WTO
Director-general's assumed definition of what our area of concern is.
There is an unmistakable whiff of disingenuous spin-control.

Here is the key quote: "People can and will ask for the moon during the
request stage of the negotiations. That doesn't mean they'll get it.
Decisions in the WTO are taken on the basis of a concensus of all member
governments. Governments cannot be forced to undertake opening of their
public services," Mr. Moore said.

But, in fact governments can be coerced to do just that, where governments
are not already actually predisposed to doing so in the first place (as in
the US, for instance).The power-plays involved in Imposing 'consensus' is
a function, among other things, of the supranational power of organized
corporate interests having, in actuality, more real power than some
nations, and of their being a grossly uneven playing-field in the first
place, with the IMF indeed bullying, on behalf of the rich countries,
nations which are financially at their mercy.

Also, it is no surprise that the WTO's chief representative uses his
blanket dismissal of all concerns about public services as yet another
occasion to reiterate the line that "trade liberalization" is the key to
'development' globally. There are many of us, however, who do not accept
that basic premise, indeed there is a vast international social movement
against that premise. Neither do we ,by any means, agree with,as
axiomatic, his organization's scenario of economic developments'
miraculous impact as the result of the trickle-down of benefits from a
free-market regimen, which is considered dogmatically to be the only
allowable or possible path. Nor do we see democratic cultural and social
development or majority political empowerment as the aim, necessary
consequence, concomitant, or even the likely unintended results, of the
kind of 'global' market solutions the WTO seeks to impose.

Furthermore, we have ample evidence that extremely powerful and organized
forces are indeed ready to push the limits of services which fall under
the GATS regime, and that there is little evidence of any principled
resistance embedded in the WTO's ideology, indeed, on the contrary. Even
in this press release it is clear that the Secretary-general senses
people's desire to defend and extend the social sector as a limit if not
an obstacle to trade liberalizations' magic, and therefore views it as, a
best a backward vestigial element which he and the WTO generally, clearly
see as withering away (or being withered away) as the pressure to erode
its boundaries remains constant or , more likely, intensifies.

The Secretary-general asserts:" the liberalization of governmental segments
of sectors such as health and education has never come up in the
discussions between governments. Even the liberalization of the commercial
segments of such sectors has received little attention in the
negotiations, he said. The focus of the negotiations has been on other
services sectors."

There is, however, much evidence that, to the contrary, services like
education are very much being looked at as potential areas of national
privatization and subsequent opening to global market dynamics imposing a
'business model' on such areas. We have reams of evidence of this line of
thought and action.

And so, I would have to say that there is little substantive guarantee here
that our fears are unjustified and much evidence of the arrogance of the
WTO, one of the principle criticisms of which, by the way, is that it is
an opaque and undemocratic organization of elites, elites which, when
they're wheeling and dealing in the framework set out by the WTO & the
IMF, discussing GATS, willl show little concern for facilitating the
dismantling of the social sector in their marketizing zeal.

Mark RosenzweigALA Councilor at large

At 12:16 PM -0500 7/19/02, John W. Berry wrote:
Council Colleagues:

Here is a recent press release forwarded to us by Ross Shimmon, Secretary
General of IFLA.

As you know, IFLA has also been concerned about WTO and GATS issues and
the potential impact on the education and library communities across the

It is helpful to have these kinds of statements from WTO officials in the
public record on these matters should the 'landscape' shift over time.

John W. Berry
Immediate Past President

July 5, 2002

I am sure you will like to see this press release!

All the best,

Ross Shimmon


Director-general of WTO and chairman of WTO services negotiations reject
misguided claims that public services are under threat

press releases
WTO news archives
Mike Moore's speeches

Services negotiations offer real opportunities For all WTO members and
more so for developing countries

Mike Moore, Director-General of the World Trade Organization and
Ambassador Alejandro Jara of Chile, Chairman of the Special Session of the
WTO Services Council, underscored today that WTO negotiations to
liberalize trade in services were no threat to Government services and
that such sectors of the services economy were in fact excluded from the

Speaking ahead of an important series of meetings on services to be held
next month, the two WTO officials stressed that encouraging competition
through liberalization holds potential for great economic benefit
particularly in developing countries. But they made it clear that every
government has the right to exclude public services including health,
education and water distribution from the negotiations and that it is for
governments to decide which service sectors they wish to liberalize and
which they do not.

"These negotiations are taking place within the legal framework of the
General Agreement on Trade in Services and the negotiating guidelines
adopted by Member Governments in March 2001. The GATS explicitly excludes
government services from its scope and there is no question of changing
those rules. The negotiating guidelines explicitly stress that each Member
Government has the right to choose the sectors it wishes to liberalize.
Government services supplied on a non-commercial basis by each of the 144
WTO Member Governments are explicitly excluded from the scope of the
negotiations. This is a principle to which all Member Governments attach
great importance and which none has sought to reopen," said Ambassador

Director-General Moore said that in the coming days governments will make
their first requests for market opening and that it was possible some
governments could ask others to open public service sectors to foreign
competition. But, he explained, that such requests do not constitute
agreements to include such sectors as part of their commitments.

"People can and will ask for the moon during the request stage of the
negotiations. That doesn't mean they'll get it. Decisions in the WTO are
taken on the basis of a concensus of all member governments. Governments
cannot be forced to undertake opening of their public services," Mr. Moore

The Director-General added that the liberalization of governmental
segments of sectors such as health and education has never come up in the
discussions between governments. Even the liberalization of the commercial
segments of such sectors has received little attention in the
negotiations, he said. The focus of the negotiations has been on other
services sectors.

"What is important about these negotiations," he said, "is that they offer
vast potential for raising living standards globally but especially in
developing countries, many of which stand to benefit the most from further
opening of services markets. In fact, 25 developing countries earn more
than half of their total export income from services".

As the negotiations enter the important stage of bilateral bargaining over
market access, Chairman Jara stressed the need for public understanding
based on clarity and objectivity.

"Each negotiating Government has the unequivocal right to choose which
services it wishes to open to foreign competition and under which
conditions and the right to regulate the supply of service in line with
national policy objectives. And even for those services provided by
governments on a commercial basis, there is nothing in the WTO rules which
requires that they be privatized or liberalized," he said.

CONTACT US : World Trade Organization, rue de Lausanne 154, CH-1211 Geneva
21, Switzerland

Ross Shimmon
Secretary General
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)
P O Box 95312
(Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 5)
2509 CH The Hague
Tel: +31 70 31 40 884
Fax: +31 70 38 34 827
Email: <ross.shimmon[at]>

IFLA 1927-2002: Uniting Library and Information Services Globally

for 75 years.
Visit our Website:

4. Defend coordinated printing of Gov Docs

[ALACOUN:7618] Fw: JCP Hearing
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:12:50 -0600
From: "Bernadine Abbott Hoduski" <ber[at]>
To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]>
Reply to: ber[at]

Hi Council Members, I am forwarding a good summary of the Joint
Committee on Printing hearing on OMB Memorandum regarding printing of gov
docs by the Government Printing Office. Julia Wallace from Senator
Dayton's state was the library witness. I will forward several other
reports of the hearing from attendees. As you can see, many non
librarians see the value in centralized printing procurement since it
provides an easy way for printing companies to bid on work, provides a
good way to identify publications in a number of formats and provide
public access. As the new chair of the Committee on Legislation, I would
urge you to contact your Member of Congress and tell them why a
coordinated system of procurement of govt info products is good for public
access. If a member of your delegation is a member of JCP, I suggest that
you send them a thank you note via email or fax (not snail mail) for their
support of the depository program and their understanding of the link
between public access and procurement of information products.

Bernadine Abbott Hoduski, Chair of Committee on Legislation
and GODORT Councilor

-----Original Message-----
From: Buckley, Francis J. <fbuckley[at]>
To: Patrice McDermott (E-mail) <pmcdermott[at]>; Baish, Mary Alice
(E-mail) <baish[at]>; Adler, Prue (E-mail) <prue[at]>;
Hoduski, Bernadine Abbott (E-mail) <ber[at]>; Walter, Bob (E-mail)
<bwalter[at]>; Julia Wallace (E-mail) <j-wall[at]>;
Andrea Sevetson (E-mail) <asevetson[at]>
Date: Friday, July 12, 2002 6:48 AM
Subject: FW: JCP Hearing


Francis J. Buckley, Jr.
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Govenment Printing Office
732 N. Capitol St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20401
phone: 202-512-0571
fax: 202-512-1434
email: fbuckley[at]

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Antoun [mailto:antoun[at]]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 7:21 PM
To: antoun[at]
Subject: JCP Hearing

Joint Committee on Printing Hearing Addresses OMB Plan
to Make GPO Optional for Executive Branch Agencies
By Frederic G. Antoun, Esq.

As printers and government agencies know, 44 U.S.C 501 has long required
that Executive Branch departments and agencies go to the Government
Printing Office (GPO).

For a number of years there has been a "turf war" between the Legislative
Branch and the Executive Branch over whether or not GPO, a Legislative
Branch entity, should be buying Executive Branch printing under a
statutory mandate. Beginning in the 1920's Executive Branch entities
began to complain about GPO's "monopoly" because GPO produced most of its
printing in-house, and fixed the prices based upon its costs. However,
since the early 1960's, GPO has been procuring most of its work on
competitive bids form private sector printers. Today, according to
testimony at the Hearing, GPO procures about 75% of all the Executive
Branch printing from private sector printers on competitive bids. As a
result, insiders generally agree the term "monopoly" applied to GPO is a
misnomer; GPO is actually is a centralized procurement operation.

While the GPO kept pace with governmental trends and began to rely on
private sector outsourcing for most government print needs, it did not
modernize its print procurement methodologies. Today, the GPO still
awards large and small printing contracts to the lowest priced vendor,
while other purchases throughout the government are generally made on a
"best value" basis, which considers not only price, but also quality,
service, on-time delivery, etc.

In May of this year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memo
M-02-07, which planned the shift from a mandatory GPO to an optional GPO,
allowing agencies to buy printing directly from the private sector. One
of the major reasons for the OMB Memo was its desire to update print
procurement methodologies, to conform to other procurement practices
throughout the rest of the federal government. However, some did not even
notice that aspect of OMB's effort, but saw the OMB Memo only as a direct
attack on GPO, and, possibly, its "Board of Directors" the Congressional
Joint Committee on Printing (JCP).

JCP held a hearing on the OMB Memo on July 10, 2002. Unlike some previous
JCP hearings, this one was very well attended, both by interested parties
and Committee members.

Comments from the Committee Chairman, Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN), the
Vice-Chairman, Congressman Robert Ney (R-OH), and other members of the
Committee made it clear that the Committee members were not pleased with
OMB's Memo. The primary reasons for this lack of support came out in the
Committee member's questions and statements:

  1. 44 U.S.C. 501 requires that Executive Branch agencies procure their
    printing through GPO and has been on the books and enforced for 130 years;
    since no court has declared the statute unconstitutional, and it has not
    been repealed, it is still the "law of the land," and cannot be overridden
    by an OMB memo.
  2. GPO competes all of its jobs, even the small ones, on open
    competition in the private sector, thereby guaranteeing the best price.
  3. Private sector printers, 16,000 of whom are registered GPO vendors,
    rely on the GPO for "one-stop shopping" to obtain government contracts,
    which are critically important to many small printing businesses.
  4. While GPO may need some modernization, there is no reason to throw
    out this longstanding economical system.
  5. Committee members saw no evidence that decentralizing print
    procurement and creating hundreds of individual printing departments would
    be more economical than the current centralized system.

Testimony by a number of experts (links to the prepared testimony is
attached at the bottom this article) can be summarized as follows:

  1. The ability to purchase printing on "best value" is a critically
    important need of the Executive Branch, as perceived by the OMB, Executive
    Branch agencies, Printing Industries of America (PIA), the United States
    Chamber of Commerce, and private sector government printers.
  2. Without the GPO's centralized system, many public documents
    distributed by the Superintendent of Documents would not be available to
    libraries throughout the country and the public.
  3. GPO openly competes all of its procurements in the private sector
    market, and thus prices reflect the market at any given time.
  4. The taxpayers and the agencies are well served by the current GPO
    system, which, with minor modifications, should meet all of the needs of
    the stakeholders.
  5. The saving analysis OMB projected for moving direct agency
    procurement was flawed in that compared GPO in-plant production cost with
    GPO procured printing cost, and not GPO procured printing cost with
    potential agency procured printing cost. There is no reason to believe
    that any private sector printer would charge an agency less that it
    charges under the highly competitive GPO open bidding system; in fact,
    given that agency procurement for small jobs (85% of government jobs are
    under $2,500) are not openly competed, the expectation is that the Cost of
    these small jobs would increase.

So what is going to happen? The purpose of the JCP Hearing and other
Congressional hearings is to gather information, not to take action.
However, it seems fairly clear from the hearing that JCP members do not
support making the GPO optional at this time. OMB has indicated that it
intends to go ahead with implementation of its plan despite JCP's
position. That would be a major mistake for the administration and OMB.
This is not a partisan battle, but one involving professional courtesy and
protocol between the branches of the government. If OMB moves ahead, it
will alienate not only Democrats, but also many Republicans on Capitol
Hill-over an issue that is not worth fighting about in the grand scheme of
things in Washington.

Printing Industries of America (PIA) and a group of its members plan to
spearhead an effort to have JCP adopt the praiseworthy procurement
modernization methods cited by OMB as a reason to justify making GPO
optional (best value, requesting Proposals instead of just a price on
complex jobs, and bundled services contracts). If JCP directs GPO to
adopt these methods, the agencies, the complaining printers, and OMB will
have what they want, and the battle should be over (JCP has the authority
under 44 USC 103 to make this change, without any new legislation).

Whether this logical change can be accomplished is unclear, but given the
appearance that both OMB and JCP simply want to build the best system for
the taxpayers, the agencies, and the vendors, we are hopeful that a
positive change can be adopted without crippling centralized print

On the other hand, it seems that OMB is far enough into this battle that,
if a change is not made, it will continue with its plans and issue new FAR
regulations permitting agencies to buy their printing without going though
GPO. If that happens, the issue will undoubtedly end up in Federal Court,
as a result of actions by GPO, the private sector printing industry, or,
surprisingly, perhaps the Joint Committee on Printing itself.

To read or download all the Hearing testimony go to:

Ó Copyright 2002 Frederic G. Antoun Jr. Re-distribution permitted only in
this form.


For Release: IMMEDIATE
Contact: Andrew M. Sherman

July 12, 2002 202-512-1991
No. 02-20


GPO appeared July 10 at a hearing of the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP)
that had been called to review the recent OMB proposal authorizing
executive branch agencies to produce or procure their own printing.
Current Federal law generally requires all agency printing to be done by

Testifying before the JCP were OMB Director Mitchell E. Daniels; Public
Printer Michael F. DiMario; Benjamin Y. Cooper, Executive Vice President
of the Printing Industries of America, Inc.; William J. Boarman, Vice
President, Communications Workers of America; and Julia F. Wallace, Head,
Government Publications Library of the University of Minnesota, on behalf
of the American Library Association, the American Association of Law
Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Medical Library

While OMB Director Daniels defended his agency's plan, other witnesses
found fault with it. PIA's Cooper said, "The solution proposed by OMB is
not likely to serve the taxpayer well," "does not serve the printing
industry," and "may not actually help the agencies." The CWA's Boarman
said OMB's proposals "to splinter GPO's functions...are a serious providing adequate information to assure a well-informed
electorate." Speaking for the library community, Wallace said OMB's
directive "will further erode the Federal Depository Library Program...
resulting in a loss of access by the American public to their Government

Public Printer DiMario provided extensive testimony on the weaknesses in
OMB's proposal, noting he had directed the same criticisms at a similar
proposal by former Vice President Gore's "reinventing Government"
initiative. "This is not a political issue," said DiMario. "It's a
question of how best to apply the Government's limited, taxpayer-financed
resources to achieving the lowest possible cost in printing services and
the broadest, most equitable dissemination of Government information to
the public."

He dismissed OMB's claim that agencies are not constitutionally required
to use GPO, saying, "In my view, unless or until Congress or a Federal
court with appropriate jurisdiction changes Title 44, the law requiring
agencies to use GPO remains in effect."

DiMario expressed concern that OMB's proposal to decentralize printing
could increase Government printing costs over current levels by as much as
$200 million annually, significantly harm the ability of private sector
printers to win Government contracts, and adversely impact public access
to Government information through 1,300 Federal depository libraries

He noted the savings that are achieved annually by GPO's Printing
Procurement Program, working in partnership with nearly 16,000 private
sector printers, more than 70% of whom are small businesses. He cited
specific examples of significant savings achieved both on large, complex
contracts and small printing jobs. He also offered to address problems
with any executive printing contracts that OMB wished to refer to GPO.

DiMario specifically rebutted OMB's claim that GPO is a "monopoly,"
pointing out that many agencies have their own legal authority to print
and that there are "an untold number" of in-house printing and duplicating
operations throughout the executive branch. He also pointed to a recent,
$1.5 million management analysis of GPO by Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc.,
which found "universal support" in the executive branch for GPO's printing
procurement program. Booz-Allen reported that "agencies viewed this
service that GPO provides as an example of 'Government at its best,' and
none of them felt that they wanted to or could do this function better
than GPO."

He discussed the potential impact on the Federal Depository Library
Program, observing that "there is no way to escape the conclusion that
OMB's policy will seriously impair public access to Government
information." He said although OMB would require agencies to continue
providing publications for depository distribution, compliance with this
requirement would be low. As support, he cited a 1998 inspector general
review of the printing program of the National Institute of Health (NIH),
which found that 78% of NIH's publications qualifying for depository
distribution were not being provided.

DiMario told the Committee that "without GPO's transparent process for
gathering publications for distribution to depository libraries, this
program will most likely fall apart, and along with it public access to
Government information through the depository system." He said the fact
that electronic information dissemination is now widespread does not
mitigate this concern, noting that GPO last year distributed to the
libraries nearly 6 million copies of approximately 15,000 print,
microfiche, CD-ROM titles for which no suitable electronic equivalents
currently exist.

Finally, DiMario said GPO has good relations with customer agencies, and
that he is willing to consider making changes in GPO's procurement
practices that will improve services for agencies as long as they do not
hinder competitive participation in GPO's procurement program. He also
offered to "sit down with OMB and work out whatever problems have
motivated them to issue this memorandum."

Public Printer DiMario's prepared statement before the JCP on the OMB
proposal is available online at


Web page with testimony before the Joint Committee on Printing:

5. Fighting Executive Order 13233

NCC WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 8, #28, July 11, 2002
by Bruce Craig <rbcraig[at]>
National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History (NCCPH)
3. Update: Pending House Action on Presidential Records Bill: More P-5
Reagan Records in Limbo

According to Hill sources, Representative Dan Burton (R-CA), Chair of the
House Committee on Government Reform, is "undeterred" to challenge
Executive Order 13233 that establishes new administrative procedures for
implementing the 1978 Presidential Records Act (PRA). Inside sources
report that the long-delayed mark-up of the Committee substitute bill to
Congressman Stephen Horn's (R-CA) measure, "The Presidential Records Act
Amendments of 2002" (H.R. 4187), will probably take place shortly after
the Government Reform Committee completes work on the Homeland Security
Department legislation -- probably in mid-July. Burton could be deterred,
however, if the President agrees to amend his executive order "to restore
greater public access to presidential papers."

In a related development, attorneys for Public Citizen Litigation Group
(the organization bringing suit on behalf of numerous historical,
archival, and media organizations to overturn the EO) received notification
from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) that some 1,654
pages of previously unknown Reagan era P-5 (confidential advice) papers are
now "under review" by the White House subject to provisions in the Bush
executive order.

Apparently, when President Reagan's representatives reviewed various
presidential materials months ago, "questions" were raised with respect to
some 1600 pages of Reagan-era presidential records. NARA representatives
have now formally notified the former and incumbent Presidents of the
proposed opening of these 1,654 pages. The release of these papers is now
in limbo because with the extended review provisions in the current
executive order, it is unclear when these papers will be made public.
NARA officials promised Public Citizen's attorneys that they will be
"as soon as practicable" after "the review of these records is
complete...and whether a constitutional privilege was asserted over any of
these records."


6. The Memory Hole keeps scarce knowledge alive

contact: Russ Kick <russ[at]>

In George Orwell's novel 1984, news articles containing inconvenient facts
were thrown down a memory hole to be incinerated. Now The Memory Hole
Website rescues knowledge in danger of being forgotten, ignored, or suppressed.

"The reason that literal memory holes don't exist," says Russ Kick, the
site's editor and publisher, "is that they don't need to. Thanks to
litigiation, spin control, self-censorship, media laziness, and info-glut,
a lot of important facts are buried. Websites disappear. Articles from the
Associated Press are changed. The New York Times buries a major revelation
in the 18th paragraph of an article on page A23. The FBI withholds
evidence. Transcripts of Congressional hearings go out of print after a
week. Crucial government documents are never put online. Citizens have to
pay hundreds of dollars for a single Freedom of Information Act request.
Investigative books reveal startling facts, but who has time to read
900-page exposes? There are lots and lots of reasons why important facts
often don't get the exposure they deserve."

Kick is the author and editor of five books and regularly writes for the
Village Voice. He was first to report on the US military's proposal for and
development of illegal bioweapons. His latest book is the anthology
Everything You Know Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to Secrets and Lies.
In it, dozens of contributors--including Greg Palast, Howard Zinn, Naomi
Klein, Paul Krassner, Arianna Huffington, Noreena Hertz, William Blum, and
Thomas Szasz--reveal startling information about the World Bank, the
Vatican Bank, mad cow disease, Ritalin, the Drug War, the 9/11 attacks,
corrupt cops, and other hot-button topics. Kick feels his Website is of a
piece with this book and his other work.

"The whole point of all that I do is to bring facts to light. I've done it
in several ways--writing books and articles, editing anthologies, and
running Websites. The Memory Hole is the latest part of the process. I want
it to serve as a central respository for important material that's in
danger of being actively suppressed or killed through neglect."

The Website will contain material ranging in length from one paragraph to
over a thousand pages. "We live in a world of limited time, frazzled
attention spans, and information overload, so a lot of the pages at The
Memory Hole are very short. They might highlight a crucial passage from a
Congressional report, an interview, or even a drug warning label. But for
people with a deep interest in a subject, there will be longer
material--entire books, government files that run hundreds of pages."

The Memory Hole will be updated several times a week. On its first day, it
contains eight features:

More material will be added starting in the next few days. Among the items
to watch for:

How does The Memory Hole pay for itself? "It doesn't," says Kick. "It's
totally non-commercial--no ads, no selling, no subscriptions. It won't earn
a dime. Of course, I don't mind if people who find the site useful or
important send me donations."

"There's a lot in the pipeline," says Kick. "I don't want to jump the gun
by revealing too much right now. Keep an eye on the site, and get the email
updates. There are some major releases in the works."

The Memory Hole is at <>.

7. Call for Papers - AEQ: "The Many Faces of Information Competence"

Publishing opportunity
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:08:02 -0400
From: Mariana Regalado <Regalado[at]>

Please excuse cross-postings.

You are invited to submit proposed articles for a special issue of
Academic Exchange Quarterly entitled "The Many Faces of Information
Competence." The issue is co-edited by Michael Adams of the City
University of New York Graduate Center and Mariana Regalado of Brooklyn

Academic librarians are increasingly instructing targeted groups
within the academic environment. Such groups include freshman learning
communities, international students, graduate students, and faculty. Each
of these groups is far from homogenous because of the diversity of their
expectations of libraries and their information-seeking experiences. Even
into the twenty-first century, many faculty members, for example, are
reluctant to use electronic resources.

How can we develop instruction programs that will address the shared
needs of such groups and the diverse needs of individuals? What assessment
tools are available to measure the success of such programs? How can we
identify constituencies being underserved?

Manuscripts are sought that describe successful (and even
unsuccessful) approaches to information literacy for targeted groups
and/or diverse populations in higher education. Manuscripts are also
sought that report on quantitative or qualitative evaluations of the
impact of information literacy programs, courses, and components of
courses. A wide variety of approaches to this topic are sought.

Academic Exchange Quarterly is a scholarly journal fostering
education, career growth, and personal development for college and
university faculty. Its current issue deals with "The Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning," and recent issues have focused on such topics as
assessment of academics, services, and administration and student
perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes. Over 23,000 institutions and
individuals subscribe to the print edition of Academic Exchange Quarterly,
and it is available electronically from Expanded Academic ASAP and
InfoTrac OneFile. Scholars from 263 colleges and universities in 44
states and 22 foreign countries have published in the journal.

Additional information is available at

Submit proposals to Michael Adams at madams[at] The
manuscript deadline will be May 2003.

Please share this message with any librarians or faculty members who
may be interested.

8. Links

Librarians and Tigers, by Paul Ford
[ ]


Hire Librarians to Upgrade Intelligence Network
(Says FBI should employ librarians, and this would have prevented 9/11.
This librarian is flattered into supporting the FBI in its radical
surveillance surge - not...).
[ ]

Privacy Resources for Librarians, Library Users, and Families
{ Don Wood ]


Library offers history seen through Nixon's point of view
[ ]


Information Professional Personality Survey
[ ]


spread the dot

spread the dot

The Internet Multicasting Service and the Internet Software Consortium
presented a proposal today to ICANN to become the new .org TLD operator.
Please help us help Google spread the word by pasting the code below into
your web pages:

<div id="dotpod" style="display:block; width:15px;
background-color:#6699cc"><a href="">
<img alt="spread the dot" border="0" height="15" width="15"

[ NewBreedLibrarian ]


The Fundemantals of Information Science
An Online Overview by Jim Robertson
[ ]


Avoiding Information Overload: Knowledge Management on the Internet

[ Scout Report ]


US Congressional Bibliographies

[ Scout Report ]


Terrorism Information and Prevention System (Operation TIPS)


The Contract of Copyright : Towards an Ethical Cynicism?
openDemocracy, 07/10/02
[ Center for Arts and Culture Update ]


Washington Post, 07/17/02
[ Center for Arts and Culture Update ]


Rethinking the Think Tanks
How industry-funded "experts" twist the environmental debate.
By Curtis Moore, Sierra Club
[ Mom ]


He who destroyes a good Booke, kills reason it selfe
: an exhibition of books which have survived Fire, the Sword and the
Censors, University of Kansas Library 1955

Various Countries

[ Don Wood ]


S. R. Ranganathan's Five Laws of Library Science

[ Don Wood ]


Deep Linking
[ Don Wood sent this ALA link ]


Yucca Mountain websites
[ Librarians Index to the Internet ]


The Collapse of Enron: A Bibliography of Online Legal, Government
and Legislative Resources - Updated, by Stephanie J. Burke
[ I got this link simultaneously from Susan Hanks & Kathleen de la Pena McCook ]


Banned Books Around the World
[ Don Wood ]


L I B R A R Y   J U I C E
| Library Juice is supported by a voluntary subscription
| fee of $10 per year, variable based on ability and
| desire to pay. You may send a check payable in US funds
| to Rory Litwin, at 1821 'O' St. Apt. 9, Sacramento, CA 95814,
| or, alternatively, you may use PayPal, by going to:
| To subscribe, email majordomo[at] with the message
| "subscribe juice".
| To unsubscribe, email majordomo[at] with the message
| "unsubscribe juice".
| Other majordomo commands are available in the help file,
| which you can get by emailing majordomo[at] with the
| message "help".
| Original material and added value in Library Juice
| are dedicated to the public domain and may be copied
| freely with appropriate attribution; beyond that the
| publisher makes no guarantees. Library Juice is a
| free weekly publication edited and published by
| Rory Litwin. Original senders are credited wherever
| possible; opinions are theirs. If you are the author
| of some email in Library Juice which you want removed
| from the web, please write to me and I will remove it.
| Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
| Rory[at]