PINES SubCommittees’ Comments (this is not all inclusive but a sample)

AI2 – Patron Inactivity but with Additional Request for Staff to Individually Delete Records

Pro

“While I fully understand the reasons behind not deleting a record as below, there are reasons for deleting a record and the ability should be there -- at least for administrators. For instance, many people want the records of their deceased relatives out of the system -- for many very good reasons.

Also, duplicate (and triplicate and even quadruplicate) cards have been issued to patrons. Making them inactive rather than deleting them (particularly when they were entered in error and the error was discovered quickly) slews the statistics as well and having them listed as inactive serves no purpose for history or anything else. Rather it cause more problems when someone activates the inactive record rather than finding the one, accurate, active one.

Another reason for the "purging" was that some libraries did not make inactive or purge records, and when we give our statistics at the end of the year claimed an unbelievable percentage of their population with library cards. Proving once again that especially using the statistics that we have, honesty is not the best policy -- it certainly makes you look bad.

If we count only active patrons, there is some accuracy, but I am not sure that is being done, and again, even inactive records are frequently causing more harm than good.

And, frankly, I don't think that taking away the right to delete a record was at all a decision that should have been made by the developers.”

“I vote yes for inactive with the understanding that locally we can delete our patrons who have died, moved, or another local reason.”

“The chief reason is the removal of bad records like 21 patrons with the family name of “A” or 17 with the family name of “B” or the various typoed family names. As a matter of fact, there is currently a patron with the first name “bad record” and the last name “bad record”. In some cases, the typos and errors can be corrected and the record can be salvaged, but in others, it is best that the record be purged. Bad records may help inflate your patron count, but do little to provide good data”

AI3 – Out of State Patrons

Is this just the one county in Alabama or all of Alabama? This is PINES, with one card for any library, so --

Does this mean that anyone from Alabama would be able to use any library in PINES?

Does that mean that anyone with a PINES card will be able to borrow from Alabama?

If it remains just Quitman, what about borrowing items from other PINES libraries for the Alabama card holders? There adds the specter of items intransit over state lines!

If it is only that county in Alabama and only that library in PINES -- how would it work with the card -- how would the card be identified? What restrictions and reservations would be put on the card?

How does this mesh with the Chattahoochee Valley reciprocal agreement? Do the folks from Alabama now get the best of both worlds or was the agreement only with Quitman? If Alabama gets to use Quitman and PINES and Chattahoochee Valley, do the Quitman folks, and therefore other PINES members, get the same extended privileges?

Pro

I think you should allow the reciprocal agreement to continue and waive the $25 (but only for Barbour County patrons) if your funding agencies are o.k. with that. I don’t think we should start any new agreements with libraries on our borders, but I don’t see anything wrong with grandfathering in an existing agreement.

Con/Pro

I vote No unless there is a written and thoroughly notarized agreement from all border states to reimburse Georgia PINES for all their residents who seek PINES cards to avail themselves of PINES services. This could a huge revenue generator with unanticipated amounts from Florida, SC, Tennessee, NC, and of course Ala. Let’s start billing them for out-of-state use immediately. Revenue would need to be targeted to courier services, of course.