156 Reviews

ongoing efforts to preserve such history, including information about the transfer of papers, the open- ing of oral histories, available publications from the office, and current publications about senators and Senate history. In recent issues it has included information about proposed activities for the bicenten- nial. The concern to ensure the preservation of current Senate history is even more directly addressed by the Office in its publication in May, 1985, of Records Management Handbook for United States Senators and Their Repositories [Reviewed this issue: Ed.]. The Guide is also a part of the Senate Historical Office’s endeavors to ensure the preservation of contemporary history. The mere presence of the Guide draws the attention of senators, their staffs, and other interested parties to the need to preserve research collections. However, the particular concern of the Historical Office, as evidenced in the Guide, is the qualitative nature of future collections of papers. Its comment in the Guide about the papers of Clinton Anderson is instructive: “A model collection of a mid-20th century senator; rich in legislative material, not overly burdened with routine constituent correspondence.” In Senate Hisfory, Number 8, July 1983, “Senatorial Oral Histories,” pp. 3-4, the Office evinces a similar concern about the quality of the oral histories, which they note are especially important for contemporary history because of the lacunae left in records by the decline in the use of personal letters, by the increase in the use of the telephone, and by jet travel. It comments on the scarcity of the extended, reflective life review that focuses on the senator (such as the one about Hiram Fong at the University of Hawaii), or that is extended to include the family, staff, and colleagues of the senator (such as the Hubert Humphrey col- lection at the Minnesota Historical Society). Moreover, they note the preponderance of shorter, one- subject interviews, presumably crowded into busy schedules, which are not restricted for any extended period to time-an indication of their non-controversial nature. Its specific recommendation, therefore, is that the oral histories be undertaken after the senator retires, when time permits reflection and the political ramifications are fewer.

Some inconveniences in the Guide do exist. One might wish that service or birth-death years be given in the main entry and that names be listed last-name-first, instead of first-name-first, for easier orienta- tion. Also, one notices that a blind reference occurs in the instance of Simon Cameron: Appendix C lists a repository (The Pennsylvania State University) that does not appear in the main entry. These are minor quibbles, however, compared to the achievement represented by the Guide. It should prove a valuable research tool for scholars interested in the United Senate and the historical events that its members observed and helped to create.

JEANNETTE MERCER SABRE Documents Section, Pattee Library The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802 USA

GPO’s Depository Library Program: A Descriptive Analysis. By Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, and Gary P. Purcell. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985. 232 pp. ISBN o-89391-313-8. LC 85-6038. $37.50.

The authors tout their book as a valuable part of the policy-making process as it [the book] becomes a part of the “knowledge-base that is used in the decision-making process by the GPO, the Joint Com- mittee on Printing, and the individual libraries in the depository program.” They see “the responsibility for the value,” however, resting not with themselves, “but rather with those who are in positions of responsibility to make constructive use of the research findings.”

One had high hopes and expectations for this book. The hopes were based on the frustration that anyone who has ever worked in a U.S. depository library has felt in having daily to deal with the U.S. Government Printing Office. The expectations were founded on an appreciation of some original and incisive work that has come forth from all three authors in the past.

Unfortunately, neither hopes nor expectations are satisfied. The bulk of this book is an amalgam of what has already appeared in the authors’ previous books and articles-there really is not very much new here. This is not to say that the authors do not hit their mark. Most of their observations about what is wrong with the management of the depository program are quite right. Yet, the book’s focus is plagued by the echoes of the authors’ previous work; vision is limited by surveys of depository libraries and a formulaic litany of usually banal tables (35), figures (14), maps (2), and charts (2).

The approach is at once expository and critical, including: presentation of historical background (21 pages), review of the research literature on the depository program-most of it by Hernon and McClure (20 pages), overview of depository library characteristics (39 pages), depiction of the depository library

Reviews 157

program by selected subgroups (62 pages), discussion of defunct depositories and the reasons for their withdrawals from the program (12 pages), consideration of the Biennial Survey as a basis for depository library and program decision-making and planning, and suggestions for improving depository library program decision-making. Amazingly, there is little, if any, serious attention given to the critically delicate and difficult relations between the Congress’ Joint Committee on Printing and the GPO, the in- effectualness of the American Library Association’s Government Documents Round Table (GODORT), the effect of staffing instability within the GPO from the Public Printer right on down through the Library Programs Service, or whether the depository program itself is a costly anachronism primarily subsidizing library collections rather than serving the public.

The book’s piece de r&stance, the sine qua non of the non-practitioner, is a challenge to the GPO, GODORT, and the JCP “to co-sponsor a national conference that would bring together the leaders of the documents field, to address directly the need to develop a strong research agenda, and to develop resources for the funding of the needed research.” This, to an audience to which the authors conde- scend to present both a bar graph and pie chart (page 189) to explain the intricacies of four percentiles for the number of depositories holding selected categories of volume sizes. Perhaps the authors under- stand all too well the need to belabor the obvious to the JCP, GODORT, and the GPO. Over the past decade most of the serious research in the documents field has been conducted by these very same authors; their suggestion for a national conference and more research cannot be perceived but as boldly self-serving. Although quite correct in their negative assessment of the depository program, it should be apparent to all, by now, that very few in the documents field have acted on the findings presented in the authors’ previous work. It is naive to think that a national conference intent on spawning more research is going to have any more salubrious effect on the problems that are endemic to the depository library program.

There can be no argument that the depository library program is badly in need of repair. I would sug- gest, however, that an overhaul of the depository system requires less the genius of Hernon, McClure, and Purcell, than it does of a Rube Goldberg.

BRUCE MORTON Head, Reference Department

Montana State University Libraries Montana State University

Bozeman, MT 59717 USA

A Bibliography of State Bibliographies, 1970-1982. By David W. Parish. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1984. 281 pp. ISBN O-87287-466-4. LC85-130. $37.50 U.S.; $45.00 elsewhere.

Building a case to convince reference and document librarians to take the time and energy to collect state documents is like finding the handles on a hundred pounds of Jello.@ Then, once that is done, try to convince them that state bibliographies are valuable reference tools. David Parish has made a strong case for the value of state documents in reference collections, but his newest book, A Bibliography of State Bibliographies, 1970-1982, may not help the cause. As Parish states in his Introduction, this is the “first attempt to bring together and make accessible” many useful bibliographies being produced by state government agencies, including those originating in state colleges and universities if listed in the Monthly Checklist of State Publications of the Library of Congress. He has included 1,03 1 titles deemed most useful to all types of libraries, annotated the entries, and organized them by state, within state alphabetically by subject, and within subject alphabetically by title. But as for making the bibliographies more accessible, I doubt it.

I had read Parish’s article “Some Light on State Bibliographies” in the January-February, 1985 issue of Government Publications Review, v. 12 no. 1, p. 65-70, in which he described his recently completed research on state bibliographies covering a 14-year period. He compares the content of his new reference book to Roberta Scull’s Bibliography of United States Government Bibliographies, 1974-76, (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1979). I reviewed Scull’s book as well, and agree that both are bibliographies of bibliographies, but there the similarity ends (see Government Publications Review, v.7A, p. 431, 1980 for that review). Unlike Scull’s book, which includes a Superintendent of Documents classification number that can be used to locate the bibliographies in many federal depository collec- tions, Parish can only include sponsoring agency; personal author, if applicable; title; place; date; pagination; and price, if known. In the Appendix, an acquisition guide is provided with some instruc-