| Re: [aserl-regionals] GPO options about shared regionals and ASERL? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Russell,Judith (jcrussell ufl.edu)
|
|
| Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:35:05 -0700 (PDT) | |
|
Larry, I am not sure if you have seen this letter that the deans/directors of the 7 existing multi-state regionals sent to GPO in late August, but it does
a good job of making the distinction between our service as the sole regional for multiple states or territories and shared regionals, where several libraries share the regional responsibilities for a single state, as occurs with the University of North Dakota
and North Dakota State. I have attached it here, but it is also posted on the ARL website at:
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/ltfdlp_umdresponse29aug11.pdf.
As John notes, the CRS opinion was requested to address the Kansas-Nebraska proposal to create a shared regional serving two states. That is not the arrangement
that was proposed by the University of Minnesota, which offered to expand its current responsibilities as a multi-state regional to include service to selectives in Michigan. [I am not on GOVDOC-L, so I hope you will post this message so they will receive my response.] Thanks!
Judy Judith C. Russell Dean of University Libraries George A. Smathers Libraries University of Florida 535 Library West PO Box 117000 Gainesville FL 32611-7000 Phone: 352-273-2505 Mobile: 202-262-6501 Fax: 352-392-7251 E-Mail: jcrussell [at] ufl.edu Web: www.uflib.ufl.edu From: John Burger [mailto:jburger [at] aserl.org]
Larry et al: Judy can correct if I am wrong about this, but if memory serves me the CRS opinion was issued in response to the proposal to share a regional collection housed across state lines – parts in Nebraska, parts in
Kansas. The recent proposal from U-Minnesota was not a “shared regional” but rather a “multi-state regional” – where one regional collection would be housed at by one library (at U-Minnesota) and serving multiple states. The U-Minnesota library/collection
already serves the citizens of Minnesota and South Dakota – the proposal was to extend that agreement to serve Michigan as well. As y’all know there are many such arrangements in place, and many of them were initiated by GPO. The CRS opinion did not address
“multi-state regionals” so I think it would be a mistake to extend it now. Regarding ASERL’s situation: We have initiated a conversation with GPO staff and have asked that there be face-to-face discussions to attempt to resolve their concerns. Not sure when that will happen – hopefully
soon. The ASERL Deans FDLP Steering Committee will be sending a letter to Robin Haun-Mohamed within the next few days to respond to the questions in her letter of September 23. We agree that the time has come for face-to-face discussions but also felt it
was important to respond to Robin’s questions in writing so the record is clear. --jeb
From: Romans, Larry [mailto:larry.romans [at] Vanderbilt.Edu]
Judy and John, I am rather concerned that GPO and ASERL are not talking together to resolve their conflicts of opinion. What’s being posted on ASERL sites seems to describe a situation that has little relation to the situation discussed on GOVDOC-L
– somewhat like listening to news reports on health care from Fox News vs. MSNBC. Letters from ARL and CIC supporting ASERL While I would like to see GPO be flexible about shared regionals and GPO work with ASERL to make the Centers of Excellence program successful, what I have heard from folks across the aisle is that GPO's hands are tied. They say that
in 2007 Congress's Joint Committee on Printing asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) for an opinion on the legality of shared regionals. CRS said that GPO cannot interpret the stature to allow shared regionals, so JCP refused to approve any more shared
regionals. A message (excerpted below) posted by Suzanne Sears on GOVDOC-L is a rather succinct statement of that view. I am posting this message to GOVDOC-L, because so many documents staff members will be affected by this situation and I think
it’s helpful for all of us to share information. Would you please respond to this on the various ASERL web sites and also post your response on GOVDOC-L? Larry An excerpt of Suzanne’s post: In September 2007, then Acting Public Printer William Turri sent a letter to the JCP seeking approval of the Kansas-Nebraska proposal
http://www.fdlp.gov/home/repository/doc_download/49-letter-from-acting-public-printer-william-turri-to-the-honorable-robert-brady. The response letter from the Honorable Robert Brady to Public Printer Robert Tapella in February 2008
http://www.fdlp.gov/home/repository/doc_download/50-letter-from-the-honorable-robert-brady, states that the JCP sought legal guidance on this issue from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). It further states "CRS concluded that neither the language
nor legislative history of 44 U.S.C. 1914 supports GPO’s interpretation of the statute. After careful review, the Joint Committee finds the CRS analysis persuasive; if the Public Printer may not authorize shared regional depository libraries under 44 U.S.C.1914,
the JCP cannot approve such action." Now that a legal opinion exists, GPO cannot simply ignore it.
In point 2, there is a quote from Title 44 regarding the authority of Senators to designate regional libraries. Part of that quote is "within the areas served by them." I am no lawyer, but I do know that Senators serve states, so the
areas served by them would be the state that elected them. To me this means that Senators are not authorized to choose a library from outside their state to serve as a regional for their state. This is my opinion. Larry Romans, Vanderbilt University Libraries, Nashville, TN 37203-2427 larry.romans [at] vanderbilt.edu (615) 322-2838 |
Attachment:
Multi-State regionals to GPO.pdf
Description: Multi-State regionals to GPO.pdf
-
GPO options about shared regionals and ASERL? Romans, Larry, October 21 2011
-
Re: GPO options about shared regionals and ASERL? John Burger, October 21 2011
- Re: [aserl-regionals] GPO options about shared regionals and ASERL? Russell,Judith, October 21 2011
-
Re: GPO options about shared regionals and ASERL? John Burger, October 21 2011
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.