Circulation Services Subcommittee Minutes

05/08/2018 9:30 am

SCLS Headquarters; Chester Room


Meeting Documents:

Action Items - None


Present: Steev Baker (SUN), Jeff Kauffeld (MAD), Ronda Evenson (VER), Margie Navarre-Saaf (MAD), Emily Harkins (WAU), Kelly Heasty (MCF), Sarah Bukrey (STO), Erica Kersten (PIN), Eddie Glade (STP), Barbara Henderson (MID).

Absent: Zach Ott (BAR), Gisela Newbegin (DFT), Dave Kreklow (POR).

Recorder: M. Karls.

SCLS Staff Present: C. Weber, H. Oliversen.


1.      Call to Order at 9:32 am.

a.      Introduction of guests/visitors.  None.

b.      Changes/Additions to the Agenda.  5g – committee acronym change.  5h – Charges older than 10 years.  

c.       Requests to address the Committee.  None.


2.      Approval of previous meeting minutes:  March 13, 2018.  The minutes from the March meeting were approved via consensus. 


3.      Action Items


4.      Reports

a.      Update on Bibliovation testing

                                                              i.      Discussion.  Some ILS staff are doing testing in the Bibliovation sandbox.  LibLime has moved over quite a bit of our functionality but still needs to tweak and finalize some of the work.  Heidi has been testing Debt Collect/UMS reports, Holds Queue report, Hold Shelf Action report, standardizing screens and making sure we get the data that we currently have, etc.  Some functionality will remain exactly the same, some has morphed a bit and there are new and different system preferences and permissions.  When the software is stable enough we will open up the testing to library staff – hope that committee members will volunteer.   


5.      Discussion

a.      Review of proposed revision to Problem Item section of the Circulation Manual

                                                              i.      Discussion.  Barbara received three responses from committee members for the workgroup edits.  There were a larger number of comments and questions rather than specific edits.   We started to go through the document and realized that we should finish the rest of the agenda and try to come back to work on this later in the meeting.   

1.      We really did not have time to finish reviewing this in meeting so all committee members will review the updated section and send Barbara any additional edits by May 11th.  Then the work group will meet again to work on revisions.                

b.      Proposal for new Juvenile Patron Category. Review responses.

                                                              i.      Discussion.  MCM’s proposal for a new patron category was sent out to all Directors and Circulation contacts on 3/21/2018.  Initial responses were positive but after a while other responses indicated that directors and staff were concerned about this category being used to actually limit and censor a patrons’ options rather than the use that MCM had initially proposed.  There were concerns with “gate keeping” and also teens (with this code) being negatively impacted by this differently at different libraries (would be prevented from checking out certain materials, etc.).  Plus some libraries code YA and tween materials as Juvenile and some as Adult.  There would be no consistent experience around the system.  A list of responses has been complied but the committee feels that this is a larger issue than we can comfortable go forward with.  The committee agreed that we need more input from all of the libraries before moving forward.  If members of the Committee would like to either submit their response to this proposal (or wish to amend their reaction) they should send it to Heidi no later than Friday, May 11th.  Afterwards Heidi will send out an email, with the up-to-date list of responses attached, to Directors and Circulation contacts asking for more feedback.  Perhaps this needs to be discussed at an All Directors meeting.

c.       Review of suggested definitions/application of patron categories

                                                              i.      Discussion.  No amendments were received (just a correction) from either the CS or the ILL subcommittees.  Will add these definitions / guideline for use to the Circulation Manual, Section C Circulation Codes.   If at any point, you find an error or inconsistency, let Heidi know.  This isn’t policy, so it can’t be enforced.  However, using the correct combination of codes makes statistics more accurate and clean-up much easier.    

d.      Workgroup report on billing notice changes. Review document.

                                                              i.      Discussion.  Emily reviewed the suggested wording changes for each billing notice.  The committee was fine with this wording.  Heidi will update the notice templates (each library has their own) and report the change to the rest of the libraries via email and blog post.      

e.      Request to add “do not reply” wording to all email notices

                                                              i.      Discussion.  Heidi reviewed the wording changes.  MCF easily manages the bounced email account and often receives replies from patrons from notices.  They are concerned patrons would have a harder time finding the library contact information in other places. Should we modify the wording to say responses are not being guaranteed from a library’s bounced email account? Sounds too wishy washy and confusing.  MAD has set-up an automatic response to any responses to their notice account; it provides the patron with an alternative email to use instead of the bounced email.  MAD will provide this information to MCF so they can do something similar.  Committee agreed to have this phrase added to all templates that may be used for email notification.    Heidi will update the templates and report the change to the rest of the libraries via email and blog post.             

f.        Request for additional Adult patron category with reduced hold and checkout maximums (STO)

                                                              i.      Discussion.  STO is requesting to add this as a tool for libraries to use for patrons who need a fresh start, patrons that place holds they don’t pick up, guardians for patrons who are disabled, etc.  STO would like the system to explore a patron category with limits in between regular (100) and limited use (3).  Libraries would not be required to use this but the limits associated with this category would be in place at all locations.  Question for STO: Could they use the limited use category with a note specifying they could override at the desk instead of creating a new PCAT?    LU and note would not work for libraries that have self check units, patron would be blocked and have to go to a staff station.  STO is thinking about suggesting the following parameters; 5 Holds, 15 Checkouts, $10 (or 20?) circulation and holds block expiration 6 months.  Sarah will create a proposal and submit it to CSS, which will be reviewed at the July meeting. 

g.      Committee acronym change.

                                                              i.      Discussion.  CSC will become CSS because we are a subcommittee.  Michelle and Cindy are working to create new email list-servs for the committee with the correct acronym.  Unfortunately that means you won’t be able to respond to any of the old(er) emails.  Heidi will send out an email from the new list when it is ready.

h.      Clearing out charges more than 10 years old.

                                                              i.      Discussion. While MAD is moving forward with their project to be more fine-friendly, they are investigating other ways to pull people (back) into the library.  One way would be to forgive fines/charges of a certain amount and age or forgive older charges that were generated when the patron was a juvenile and may not have had control of the card.  Now that these patrons are adults, often with kids of their own, we want to give them a fresh start and a chance to be responsible using the library.  Are we going to collect really old fines (2000, 2005, etc)?  Would it make sense to clear up the database before we migrate to Bibliovation?  What if we eliminated all charges, fines AND lost charges on accounts with no activity for 10 years or more AND have an account balance below $300?  Suggest that we run the reports, look at the accounts and amounts and send the reports to the individual libraries with the proposal.  Clean-up could be by staff at individual libraries or the libraries could request that system staff purge “their” records.  Discussion about whether or not to implement something similar as an annual process?  Cindy will run the reports (in increments of $100, $200, etc.) and we will look at them to see how we want to proceed.      

6.      Plan for Next meeting:  July 10, 2018 or delay until July 24.  Let Heidi know by email which date you prefer and she will send out the final meeting date. 


7.      Adjournment at 11:38 am.


SCLS staff are available to attend cluster meetings to share information and answer questions pertaining to this committee meeting and other departmental projects.