Draft Discussion/Action Items
September 2009
Action Items
All Subcommittee Comments can be found at http://forums.georgialibraries.org/index.php?board=23.0
AI1. What to name the new staff/patron profile
Last May, the PINES Executive Committee approved a new staff/patron profile that would be called "staff" and would have no permissions assigned to it, but could have permissions added to it by your LocalAdmin. A staff member assigned to the "staff" patron profile would not be charged for overdue materials just like the other profiles set up for staff. This would be similar to the profiles available such as cir1, cat2, and etc.
We need to call this profile something other than “staff”. We have learned that “staff” is already being used in the profile hierarchy and would require significant development to change this.
Subcommittee Recommendation:
11 Employee
11 Other
Other- Most preferred “LibraryEmployee”
Subcommittee Comments:
“I don't feel that "personnel" or "employee" are specific enough. I would suggest "LibraryPersonnel" or "LibraryEmployee" instead.”
“…this needs more description about the limitations of this profile. This would be profile that we would rarely use, and I would need some type of memory jog.”
AI2. Proposal for partnerships with other types of libraries
See the “Proposal for partnerships with other types of libraries” document for details.
Subcommittee Recommendation:
19 Yes
3 No
Subcommittee Comments:
See the “Proposal for partnerships with other types of libraries” document for details.
AI3. Ability to edit a patron’s internet access level
Proposal: Only staff within patron's home library system can edit the patron's internet access level.
Explanation for proposal: This policy will allow libraries to confidently use self-reservation software that validates patron information in Evergreen, without worrying about the patrons internet access level being changed when the patron visits another library system. This will further strengthen and ensure the library's compliance with the regional library system's computer use policy.
Further explanation from library’s request added within the discussions:
“…First, this proposal only requests that another library outside of the patron's home library system cannot change the Internet Access level setting in Evergreen. This proposal does not request that other PINES are bound to follow the Internet Access setting… Again, this proposal does not request that other PINES be bound to abide by this Internet Access setting. In other words, if an OCRL patrons visits another system as a guest and the patron's internet access is set to "NO ACCESS," we are not asking that you also disallow access...but rather follow your own computer use policy… If you are also using a self-service computer reservation system and if this patron visits your library, this does mean your patron will require staff assistance in making a reservation. However, if you were to change their Internet access level to "filtered" or "unfiltered," that would affect our ability to effectively apply our computer use policy.”
Subcommittee Recommendation:
8 Yes
15 No
Subcommittee Member Comments:
“I agree with the principle and understand the reasoning, but there are too many variables.
Too many patrons use several diffeent library systems...we have patrons who regularly use at least three, sometimes more, different library systems -- with varying computer policies…”
“I’ve always been one who thought that less is more. Less policies, less procedures, less limits, less restrictions… There are too many aspects of a patron’s registration that need review and change, from time to time, that setting restrictions will be detrimental to all libraries… In this case, “Only staff within patron's home library system can edit the patron's internet access level,” can be easily circumvented by changing the Home Library.”
‘I'd much rather have another library be able to accomodate "my" patron, and change their address and update their card while they are there. It only gives all of us a happy patron.”
AI4. Non-Cataloged Items and Due Date
Proposal: The circ modifier controls the due date for each item. The circ modifier consults the closed date editor to allow for days that the library is closed. Because non-cat items do not have a circ modifier, the closed date editor is not consulted. Since these items do not accrue fines and are not physically checked in, we've been assuming that the due date is not as relevant. However, due to concerns around uniform customer experience, should the due dates for non-cat items match the due date of all other like items?
However, STILL no fines should accrue on these items.
Subcommittee Recommendation:
12 Yes
6 No
Subcommittee Comments:
“…Since the Circ. Modifiers are used in the cataloging function, and these are not cataloged items, I'm wondering how this might be reconciled.”
“Since the noncat items don't accrue fines, what is the point in it consulting the due date editor?”
AI5. Block patrons from renewing if they have fines of $10.00 or more revisited
Proposal: Currently, while a patron cannot check out new materials with fines of $10.00 or more, they can renew materials when they have excessive fines.
While the intent may be to "give the patron more time as a courtesy" in reality it enables the patron to keep the materials for excessive periods of time and encourages the patron to continue to hold the books or not clear their account. Additionally, the materials are listed as "checked out", have a short new due date so that holds could potentially be placed on them, and would be removed from "long overdue". I propose that if a patron has fines of $10.00 or more, as in current checkouts, that the renewal function be turned off for the patron accessible account and that a "force" for the renewal command be added for the staff client.
Subcommittee Recommendation:
19 Yes
4 No
1 Other
Subcommittee Comments:
“The one problem with this is that if a patron has 10 or more items out and they call to renew -- they would be blocked even if the items were only 1 or 2 days overdue.
The other side is that policy is that a card is not in good standing with an excessive fine or excessive overdues. Being able to renew an item that is overdue to the mximum amount keeps that item out for months -- the limit needs to be the same. A renewal is a checkout.”
“PINES policy states: A patron must present a card in good standing to borrow materials. A patron’s card will be blocked, and no services may be obtained with it if the patron has 10 or more overdue items, or owes $10 or more in unpaid fines and/or fees.”
AI6. Withdrawn or Discard Status Added to the Actions for Selected Items under the Item Status tab just like the "Mark Item Damaged" and "Mark Item Missing" function.
The creation of a new status called, "Withdrawn" or the use of the current status of "Discard/Weed" that has the same non-holdable and non-OPAC-viewable characteristics as "Damage" or "Missing" and can be accessed by branch staff in Item Status (F5) like "Damage" or "Missing." The status is designed so that staff without cataloging permissions can change
the status of a withdrawn item so it will not be eligible for holds or perceived as available by patrons.
Currently, branch staff must send these items to Cataloging or create a shared bucket and send an e-mail to Cataloging with the shared bucket information before the status is changed. The availability of this status in the Item Status interface will streamline the process of withdrawing items from the collection and save staff time.
Subcommittee Recommendation:
2 Yes, use existing Discard
10 Yes, use Withdrawn
3 No
Subcommittee Comments:
“…This will be helpful to Circulation Desk staff when the item has already been taken off of the patron's card, then staff notices that the item really is not in good enough shape to go back on the shelf. This will be a one-step process to remove it from the system, and not have to wait for staff in another department to remove it.”
“I am voting no. There is too much opportunity at the circulation desk with one more item in the drop down menu to accidentally withdraw an item -- or -- this could afford circulation staff the opportunity to do extremely selective weeding that is not necessarily according to library policy.
I would say yes only if that particular option was one of the ones that could be turned on or off according to the staff members log-in level.”
“I'd love to see something other than Damaged which is what we use now. It would help cataloging know what we want done with the item. The proposal, as I read it does not recommend that the item is actually withdrawn or discarded but that the status is assigned.”
“I have read these posts a few times and can see the importance of staff having a clean way of removing an item from OPAC view. I can see as well the opportunity for staff error when the circ lines are long and the phones are ringing. I know that “silent censorship” can happen, too.”
“I vote yes as long as the action is easily undo-able if it is done by mistake. I also like the idea of limiting the action to certain logins like cir1 profiles--or at least making it a grantable permission that local admins can assign as appropriate for individual systems.”
“Instead of “Withdrawn,” how about “Unavailable”? The reason for this change is that branch staff need to pull items from their collection, and it is important that these items be quickly converted into a non-holdable and non-OPAC viewable status. The name of the status is secondary.”
1