On April 24, Emily Sheketoff (ALA), Doug Newcomb (SLA), and Mary Alice Baish (AALL) met with representatives of the EPA to express the library community's concern over the budget reduction for the regional EPA libraries and the premature dismantling of the libraries before the budget had even passed. Below are the notes from that meeting.
There is still a little time for you to contact your legislators. Urge your Members of Congress to introduce or support any amendment introduced to the FY 07 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill to restore the funding for EPA libraries that has been cut in the Agency's budget. The ALA's new Legislative Action Center makes it easy to do.
EPA Meeting, April 24, 2006
Present:
Emily Sheketoff (ALA)
Doug Newcomb (SLA)
Mary Alice Baish (AALL)
EPA: Linda Travers, Acting Assistant Administrator/CIO
Emma McNamara, Director, Information Access Division
Mike Flynn, Deputy Office Director, OIAA
Kate Sijthoff, OIAA
Staff person sitting in for Rick Martin, Office Director, OIAA
As we introduced ourselves, Emily let them know that this is animportant issue for ALA and one of the "Key Congressional Messages" thatALA members would be taking to the Hill on National Library Legislative Day.
Linda Travers began the discussion by noting that they have been looking at their libraries for many years and now have to deal with the $2.5 M reduction in FY 2007. She said that their focus is on digital information, both for future dissemination and for access to the legacy collection and that they are moving away from print. She noted that Mike Flynn is chair of the Steering Committee to oversee the changes.
Mike Flynn picked up on that by noting they are moving to a new model for greater efficiencies, and that we needed to understand the transition. The Steering Committee consists of management (no EPA scientists or librarians are on it) and they're looking at budget issues and what decisions the regional offices are making.
They want to ensure that good services continue for EPA employees (there was mere lip service paid to our concerns about access by the public). He noted that there will be a transition to 1-3 repositories (Cincinnati, Research Triangle and possibly even the HQ library) that would become "centers of excellence" and provide ILL services to "anyone. But no real thought has gone into public access to this information. He said that public access will be "different," no longer physical access.
Linda then noted that EPA provides good public access through their web site, and they respond to many phone and email queries. At one point, she mentioned that the regions would probably have some sort of small office on the ground floor where either a staff of public affairs or a librarian would respond to public queries. Part of the rationale for closing the libraries, she said, was the security concerns post-9/11.
Mary Alice had brought along a copy of the "Transforming EPA Libraries" report suggesting that it provided a roadmap to improved efficiencies. They jumped on that, saying they in fact are following its recommendations. Our response that you should not close the libraries until you have the new improved system in place fell on deaf years.
Emma McNamara (a librarian) responded to our concerns about closing libraries by stating that the Cincinnati repository is committed to digitizing all unique materials and they are reviewing how to phase that in. We pointed out the substantial costs of digitizing the entire legacy collection--millions of dollars--and there was no reaction. We were alarmed when Emma said that they would keep ONE copy of all EPA reports and make these available through ILL--hardly sufficient to provide the necessary access or preservation, as we pointed out. She said at one point that Cincinnati would make "free" copies of their reports available to anyone who asked.
We got into a discussion about Science Direct and the need to retain print journals for their staff. Emma said that they will keep at least one subscription to their print journals for that purpose (we understand that is part of their contract with Reed Elsevier). She noted that EPA pays $3.5-4 million annually for Science Direct but that it comes out of the EPA budget, not the library budget.
We tried whenever possible to restate our talking points that they are envisioning the future but it's not here now and closing the libraries should not be implemented until robust public access through these "centers of excellence" can be achieved. We talked a lot about user needs for EPA materials, including state and local government entities. They clearly are not concerned about loss of public access. At one point, Linda admitted that it might take 6 months to move the Chicago collections and make them accessible again. We reiterated that their proposal to convert everything to digital is going to be very costly at a time when they want to cut a mere $2.5 million.
Finally, we asked numerous times for their business plan. Apparently there will "ultimately" be such a document and we encouraged that it be distributed for public comment. Linda Travers seemed to understand that the EPA staff has done a poor job of communicating and there is no realistic plan in place to move forward in what they want to do.
All in all, an important conversation with EPA about the library budget cuts but clearly they are moving ahead and we certainly didn't change their minds. We need to get support on the Hill quickly as EPA's FY 2007 approps bills are being marked up shortly.
Mary Alice Baish
5/9/2006