Circulation Services Subcommittee Minutes

11/13/2018 9:30 am

SCLS Headquarters; Chester Room



Action Items:

Item #1 – The Circulation Services Subcommittee proposes all libraries use the newest version of the 14 and 26 day overdue notice templates and optional 7 day overdue notice template.


Present: Zach Ott (BAR), Steev Baker (SUN), Jeff Kauffeld (MAD), Margie Navarre-Saaf (MAD), Kelly Heasty (MCF), Sarah Bukrey (STO), Erica Kersten (PIN), Eddie Glade (STP), Jo Clark (REE), Ronda Evenson (VER)


Excused: Emily Harkins (WAU), Barbara Henderson (MID)

Recorder: Michelle Karls (SCLS)

SCLS staff present: Heidi Oliversen, Cindy Weber


1.      Call to order time at 9:32 am

a.      Introduction of guests/visitors

                                                              i.      None

b.      Changes/Additions to the Agenda

                                                              i.      Changes: None

                                                             ii.      Additions: Under Discussion e, Heidi added “Review notice templates.”  Under discussion f, S. Burkey from STO added “Discussion of patron records.”

c.       Requests to address the Committee

                                                              i.      None


2.      Approval of previous meeting minutes

a.      Changes or corrections: None

b.      Approved by consensus or motion.   The committee approved the September 2018 minutes by consensus.


3.      Action items – None.

4.      Reports – None.


5.      Discussion items

a.      Annual Batch Deletion- Discussion about including all problem item statuses.

                                                              i.      Discussion: Heidi received an email from a staff member whose patron had the only hold on an item that had been “In transit” for two years.  This problem led to a discussion among SCLS staff about including all problem item statuses in the ABD reports and process.  Currently, only items with statuses of Damaged, Missing, Inventory, Lost In Transit, Trace, Missing and Lost are subject to annual batch deletion.  Items with the following statuses are not included in the annual batch deletion process: Claims Returned, AV repair, Defect Reported, Mending and Part Missing.  In November of each year the first set of reports are available for libraries to review that contain items with specific problem statuses that are over a year old.  The next set of reports are run in May of the next year for items with problem item statuses a year old or older.  The batch deletion scheduled in July of every year includes only those items that have not been updated.  By this time in the process many of the items have a status set 18 months ago or longer.  Does this group think there is merit in adding the rest of the problem item statuses to this process?  If yes then we can send this question out to all libraries for review and discussion.  We will add this as a discussion item to the December ILS Committee meeting. One committee member wondered if there were any libraries that reverted Claims Returned items back to Lost and charged the patrons after a set period of time?  That used to be a practice with some libraries but not sure if anyone is still doing that.    We will talk about the ILS Committee members’ responses at the January meeting.

                                                            ii.      Action:  Add this as a discussion item to the December ILS Committee meeting agenda.

b.      Section VIII Problem item statuses and workflow.  Review workgroup changes.

                                                              i.      Discussion: Barbara re-sent out the August edited version of the Section for the committee to review.  After reviewing the document all agreed that it really was difficult to read the document when it includes all of the edits.  Plus the group would like to work through the entire Section so we will carve out a specific time frame for the January meeting.  One of the edits was to remove the instructions for how to fill out the Claims Returned form.  This is the only place where the instructions live so the group agreed that they should be retained but re-written to avoid redundancy.  Heidi will read through the entire document, delete the screen shots, accept all the edits and clean up the formatting in order to send the committee a clean copy.  She will also send the version with all the tracked edits so if people have questions they can refer to that first.  Heidi will send both docs to the group.  All members should bring any suggested changes to the January meeting here we will go through the entire document (if time permits).        

c.       Proposed OLL procedure for returned Damaged and Part Missing.

                                                              i.      Discussion: OLL is the inter library loan Clearinghouse for all LINKcat materials that are requested out of system and out of state. When items are returned damaged or missing parts the Clearinghouse would like to contact the owning library right away, provide them with the information and, with approval, potentially bill the patrons right away.  Kathy at OLL agreed to set up a pilot test with some libraries and it worked very well.  This procedure was discussed and approved by the ILL Subcommittee and Heidi said she would raise the issue with CSS.  Heidi O. (SCLS) and Kathy Wolkoff (OLL) will create a procedural workflow in order to allow all LINKcat libraries to understand the process.  Since this is a case-by-case procedure and the owning libraries will be involved from day One, it is unlikely that a system-wide policy is required.  But this will be discussed at a future time by a larger governance structure once the procedural workflow is complete.

d.      Information request: asking Fine free libraries how they handle fines generated elsewhere

                                                              i.      Discussion: Heidi only received responses from MID and STP.  The current policy, Fines/Financial – standard rules states that the library receiving the payment from a patron can waive or retain overdue fines, even if generated at another library.  This was adopted for several reasons, including reducing the amount of cash payments being sent through Delivery and also reducing the amount of time it took library staff to help patrons designate which part of the payment went to how many different libraries.  Libraries also have the option to tell patrons that they will have to reconcile those charges with the library at which they were generated.  MAD and other committee members expressed concern that fine free libraries will unilaterally waive fines generated at other libraries in order to promote their new fine free status.  Committee members reported that they generally do not waive large amounts of fines generated elsewhere unless they first contact the library or libraries where the fines were generated.  And each situation was dealt with on a case-by-case basis.   After more discussion it was agreed that right now it seems unnecessary to amend the current policy.  We can revisit this discussion in the future if there are concerns.      

e.      Review notice templates

                                                              i.      Discussion: Heidi displayed the Word document with all of the Overdue notice templates that are currently being used.  They are all virtually identical.  Do we really need to offer a pick of three notice templates to libraries since there are no significant differences?  Committee members said no.  Most likely a recommendation to only use the wording on one specific set of templates will need to be approved by the ILS Committee, if not each library director. Heidi will post the documents displaying the different templates on today’s meeting page and collate the number of libraries that are using the various templates.   

                                                            ii.      Motion.   E. Kersten proposes that all libraries use the newest version of the 14 and 26 day overdue notice templates and the optional 7 day overdue notice template as preferred.  E. Glade seconded. 

                                                          iii.      Vote: motion carried.

f.        Discussion of patron records

                                                              i.      Discussion: STO has a transition group from the local high school and they want their students to get library cards.  Each of these patrons have some type of guardian.  Where do other libraries put the information regarding guardians for adults?  Several committee members stated that they use the Alternative Contact fields in the patron record and put a Note on the patron’s Check Out screen.  Library staff work with the patron and/or guardian to determine the patron category to use for the account (i.e. Adult or Limited Use). 


6.      Plan for next meeting: January 8, 2019, 9:30 am, SCLS Headquarters

a.      2019 schedule

                                                              i.      January 8

                                                             ii.      March 12

                                                           iii.      May 14

                                                           iv.      July 9

                                                             v.      September 10

                                                           vi.      November 12


7.      Adjournment: 11:28 am.

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