ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries May 1989 / 377 with telephone modem and printer. W ithin Illi­ nois, the College of Lake C ounty coordinates group discounts to DIALOG for libraries who place $1,000 “on account” each October. NILRC survey respondents estimated the annual direct on­ line search costs ranging from $200 to $6,000 per year. Sixty-four percent had annual costs less than $900. The average direct cost per search was $7.77. In response to “insufficient anticipated use,” the NILRC survey showed th at the number of searches per college ranged from 29 to 1,022 per year, with 71 % conducting fewer than 100 searches per year. Among the colleges reporting searches by patron category, 30 % searches were for faculty, 13 % for administration/staff, 39% for students, and 18% for other patrons. Although use of online search services is low, access to the information resources is provided. Finally, in response to “insufficient personnel,” the survey showed the amount of staff time re­ quired for online searching was low. Seventy-two percent estim ated staff tim e devoted to online search services during the academic year to five hours per week or less. In conclusion, academic libraries, especially community colleges, consider online search ser­ vices as a part of their overall library service in sup­ port of the college’s instructional program and in­ stitu tio n al mission. F u n d in g av ailab ility and philosophy determine the interpretation of equal access to info rm atio n w ith in bud g etary con­ straints. Fee structures can range from simple to complex, from free to the patron to cost-recovery. Structures consider the patron status (student, staff, external), the search category (basic or spe­ cialized), and pricing goal (token, discount, or cost-recovery). Community colleges tend to pro­ vide free online services to faculty, administration, staff and students more frequently than other aca­ demic institutions. Implem enting online search services need not be prohibitively expensive to initi­ ate or maintain and will not only provide enhanced reference service but also will improve the image of the library. ■ ■ In defense o f FIRST and freedom o f access to inform ation By Helen B. Josephine Information Manager, FIRST Arizona State University and Maxine H. Reneker Associate Dean o f University Libraries for Public Services Arizona State University Campus-based information service ruled no challenge to private enterprise in Arizona. F IRST, the Fee-based Information and Research Service Team at Arizona State University L i­ braries, was challenged in July 1988 by an informa­ tion broker marketing online database searches to clients in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The chal­ lenge was brought under the Arizona Private En­ terprise Law, ARS 41-2751, which constrains the publicly-funded community colleges and universi­ 378 / C&RL News ties in Arizona from providing to persons other than students, faculty, staff, and invited guests, any services which are available in the private sec­ tor. If it had been successful, this challenge would have had far-ranging implications for the provision of in fo rm atio n an d reference services to off- campus clientele by state-funded university li­ braries. The ASU Libraries created FIRST in response to information requests from outside clientele which had placed a heavy burden on reference and infor­ mation services both in the m ain Hayden Library and in the Daniel E. Noble Science and Engineer­ ing L ib ra ry . T he in creasin g dem ands of off- campus users for specialized research assistance, online searching, and expedited interlibrary loan led to the development of a separate library unit th a t would provide these services for a fee. During the process of examining the need and the feasibil­ ity of establishing a fee-based service, the Libraries obtained a favorable opinion from the university’s general counsel th at the proposed service is consis­ tent with, and offered as p art of, the public service mission of the university. The two-year pilot program began in January 1987 when a corporate services librarian was hired to assess the needs of the off-campus users; if suffic­ ient dem and was dem onstrated, the lib rarian would develop and implement a business plan for the new service. By July 1987 the service had a nam e (FIRST), an identifiable presence in the in- form ation/library community, and a growing cli­ ent base of satisfied users. Nine months after the service started, an infor­ mation broker in the private sector learned of the service at ASU. Richard Mauzy, president of O n­ line Newslink, Inc., is a private investigator who uses online computer databases as a supplement to investigative research. In order to expand his busi­ ness and his client base, he began to learn about the information industry and the role of the informa­ tion broker. His decision to become an information broker specializing in online database searching co­ incided w ith the growth of FIRST at ASU. On June 23,1988, Mauzy filed a complaint with the Arizona Board of Regents and the state’s Pri­ vate Enterprise Review Board claim ing unfair competition under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 412751, which limits the state’s publicly funded universities and colleges from competing in the pri­ vate sector in the offering of goods and services, ex­ cept where these activities support the teaching, re­ search, or public service mission of the university. In defense of FIRST, the university claimed pro­ tection under the public service clause of the statute, reaffirming the opinion given to the ASU Libraries before the service began. Also, the university’s re­ sponse included a statement that the information services provided by FIRST are an extension of the traditional library services which have always been available to the general public and that these services do not constitute a new venture. The first step in the procedures prescribed by law was a settlement hearing where both parties met and conferred. Once compromise seemed un­ likely, the complainant then requested a hearing before a subcommittee of the Arizona Board of Re­ g n t s . At this hearing, on August 23,1988, the sub­ committee heard four hours of testimony. In its recommendations to the full Board, the subcom­ mittee found th at the services of FIRST fell within the public service mission of the university. The subcommittee suggested, however, th at prices for the service reflect all costs, both direct and indi­ rect. The complaint was then referred to the Private Enterprise Review Board, an eight-member panel created by the Arizona Legislature to protect small businesses from unfair competition by the universi­ ties. Six members of the Review Board are engaged in private enterprise, three of whom represent the small business community. The other members of the Review Board represent the community college district governing board and the Board of Regents. At its January 18, 1989, meeting, the Review Board h eard testim ony from the co m p lain an t, Richard Mauzy of Online Newslink, In c., and from the respondent, represented by ASU General Counsel, Bruce Meyerson, and three witnesses: Maxine Reneker, associate dean of university li­ braries for public services; Helen Josephine, infor­ m ation m anager of FIRST; and Pat Wood, a local law librarian and board member of the Arizona State Library Association. Meyerson provided the university’s interpreta­ tion of the legal issues involved, including the ob­ servation that there is no legal precedent for re­ stricting the inform ation activities of a library. Reneker’s testimony included an overview of the broad range of services offered by the Libraries to off-campus users, and a history of the demands of these users which led to the creation of a separate unit to provide improved service. In addition, she raised questions co ncerning th e c o n stra in t of FIRST and the im pact it would have on the Li­ b raries’ ability to provide access to lib rary re ­ sources and other services to its off-campus clien­ tele.1 Josephine described the services offered by FIRST and the steps involved in answering a pa­ tron’s request. As a client of FIRST and as an infor­ m ation professional, Wood explained how im por­ ta n t the services of FIRST are to individuals, businesses, and special libraries by detailing the steps required and the delays experienced in ob­ taining information and documents before FIRST was created. After hearing the arguments and questioning the witnesses, the Review Board unanimously passed a motion in favor of the respondent, Arizona State 1The full text of Reneker’s testimony and addi­ tional commentary on the implications of the chal­ lenge to FIRST may be found in Online Libraries ana Microcomputers 7 (February 1989): 2-5. May 1989 / 379 University. However, the Board recommended that ASU discontinue advertising its service in the telephone yellow page listings. Individual mem­ bers of the Board expressed sympathy with Mauzy’s struggle as a small businessman, but they also af­ firmed that access to information is too im portant to restrict in any way. FIRST, currently in its second year of service, has over 700 clients, including large corporations, small businesses, law firms, consultants, inventors, and other individuals. Its services are priced to re­ cover both direct costs of operations, such as online vendor search fees and connect time, photocopying and delivery costs, and indirect costs of operation w ithin the university structure, determined by a formula similar to that used to recover the costs for sponsored research. Demand for FIRST’S services continues to grow; the revenue from document de­ livery substantially exceeds the revenues from re­ search services and online database searching. FIRST also provides translation and referral ser­ vices, and is exploring the market for seminars on library research. The challenge to the services of FIRST in Ar­ izona should be viewed in the context of the ques­ tions being raised nationwide concerning the pro­ vision of services by universities th at have real or potential impact upon the ability of small busi­ nesses to successfully m arket similar services. A September 7, 1988, article in the Chronicle of H igher E d u ca tio n reports th a t 12 states have passed, or are in the process of passing, legislation restricting the business-related activities of univer­ sities. In Colorado and Iow a, the legislation is broadly written; in other states the law is much narrower. In Idaho the legislation refers specifi­ cally to the sale of hearing aids; however, it is viewed as a first step tow ard restricting other ser­ vices or the sale of other items by the university.2 At the second conference on Fee-Based Research in Colleges and University Libraries, Miriam Drake commented on similar legislation in Louisiana and Pennsylvania. In addition, she reported on the in­ vestigation of the General Accounting Office con­ cerning the business activities of universities and other not-for-profit organizations, prompted by the allegations of small businesses th at these orga­ nizations have too much of a competitive advan­ tage in the sale of goods and services. In Drake’s view: “If the university defines services to business and industry in its mission statement, then fee-based li­ brary and information services might be consid­ ered p art of its usual business. Under some of these statutes private business could bring action.... Ulti­ mately, these issues will be decided in the courts but will depend on the state law , interpretation of 2Scott Jaschick, “Three More States Adopt Mea­ sures to Restrict Cam pus-Run Businesses,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 1988, A1 and A18. the tax code, the mood of the judge, and how well the university has defined its mission.”3 In view of the enactment of legislation to limit business-related activities of universities, the opin­ ion of the Arizona Private Enterprise Board in re­ viewing the challenge to FIRST will provide prece­ d e n t for defense of sim ila r lib r a ry services. Libraries in states w ith similar legislation should review their statutes carefully, obtain appropriate legal counsel in advance of the establishment of fee-based services, and take care to ensure that the mission statements of both the parent organization and the library articulate a public service mission to off-campus clientele. Had the challenge to FIRST in Arizona been suc­ cessful, the way would have been opened for other challenges to services such as circulation of m ateri­ als which are also available for sale in local book­ stores, the provision of reference information from sources used by private information brokers, or tours and instruction in the use of the libraries to off-campus clients. Libraries offer access to a vari­ ety of information sources—both for a fee and free. For example, online searching is offered at no charge, at cost, and at full-cost recovery; dial-in access to online catalogs is offered for a fee or by subscription; CD-ROM workstations with access to databases are offered free, or a nominal fee is charged for printing citations. Obviously many public and academic libraries offer online searching through commercial ven­ dors, document delivery, and online catalogs with multiple databases, all of which could be viewed as competition w ith private inform ation brokers. Testimony during the challenge to FIRST revealed the opinion of several witnesses th at the only legiti­ mate service an academic library should offer to off-campus clientele is the issuing of borrowers cards and access to photocopy machines to copy non-circulating m aterial. If this view had pre­ vailed, the citizens of Arizona would have had their access to the information resources of the ASU Libraries and other publicly funded libraries, greatly curtailed. ■ ■ 3Miriam A. Drake, “Policy: Help or H urdle?,” in Conference on Fee-Based Research in College and University Libraries, Fee-Based Services: Issues and Answers, Anne K. Beaubien, comp. (Ann Ar­ bor: Michigan Information Transfer Source, Uni­ versity of Michigan Libraries, 1987), 54.