ILS Committee Minutes

August 01, 2018, 10 am

SCLS Headquarters
Chester Room


Meeting Documents:

To phone in to a meeting: call 800-511-7983, use access code 628394#.


Present: C. Borck, WID (2), A. Noel, BRD (3), E. Glade, PCPL (4); E. Judd, SKC (5); E. Norton, MCM (6); M. Navarre Saaf, MAD (12); B. Faherty, MID (8), H. Cox, MCF (7), T. Herold, DCL (9, 10).


Absent:  E. Foley, ACL (1), S. Lee, M. Warren, MAD (11, 13)




SCLS Staff Present: V. Teal Lovely, H. Oliversen, M. Van Pelt, Recorder: M. Karls. 


1.      Call to Order at 10:02 am.

a.      Introduction of guests/visitors.  Steev Baker (SUN) is observing.

b.      Changes/Additions to the Agenda.  None.

c.       Requests to address the Committee.  None.


2.      Approval of previous meeting minutes: June 6, 2018.  B. Faherty moved approval of the June 6, 2018 minutes.  M. Navarre Saaf seconded.  Vote: motion carried. 


3.      Action Items

a.      Approval of API scripting policy

                                                              i.      Discussion.  The API scripting policy is the same version we looked at two months ago.  Vicki has received no comments. 

                                                            ii.      Motion.  E. Norton moves approval of the API scripting policy. M. Navarre Saaf seconded. 

                                                          iii.      Vote: motion carried.  MID opposed (Cluster 8 did not offer a response).  They believe this is punitive (making a library responsible for cost going through the vetting procedure) and doesn’t foster creativity and innovation to allow them to fully serve their patrons.  V. Teal Lovely clarified that the reasons the cost were added because the group that reviewed this process determined that unless the library presenting it or SCLS can support it, it’s only going to benefit that individual library.  This policy is not meant to be punitive, but to prevent the security of the system from being compromised.  The idea behind this was that libraries can chose to bring it to the committee to request SCLS to add these scripts on a system wide level.  SCLS tech staff had met with MID to start talking about the online patron registration form and self-check software to start the vetting process.  It’s a similar process for using outside vendors that need SIP authentication access to our database.  We have two vendors (LibLime and A-Team) right now that can vet scripts.  SCLS’s number one concern is making sure our data is safe for all libraries.      

b.      Approval of Policy for Accessing the Shared ILS

                                                              i.      Discussion.  This was previously in the Circulation manual, which was at one time considered policy.  We have moved away from this, so we would like this to be an official policy.  REE asked for more clarification that included suggestions for maintaining passwords.  Does the system have a way to track actions by IP address in case a former employee was to do something in the system?  Is there any way to unencrypt the password?  Could you go in and force everyone to reset their password every 3 months? SCLS staff would have to do this.  We have done in the past and distributed the password.  This is something we could do again.  You can use permission levels to limit staff ability.  We will look into those questions and have Circulation Services for further discussion. These can be worked into a procedure, but they don’t need to be included in the policy. Committee members felt they should discuss this with their clusters and get more feedback before voting on it.  Can we eliminate under number 2 the part about changing a password when an employee leaves and just leave it up to the individual library policies?  This would still allow flexibility and we could add more to it in the future if necessary.  Heidi does check library calendars.  She can also run a report about when the last time it was updated and we could force reset.  Library staff would need to contact the Help Desk staff if a reset is forced.  This is a best practice CSS can work on.  We’ve said libraries are responsible for this in the past, but it’s similar to the script in that it’s part of security practices. 

                                                            ii.      Motion.  A. moves approval of the policy as amended.  H. Cox seconded.

                                                          iii.      Vote: motion carried.          

c.       Patron record SCLS Lost Items: waiving charges and deleting record (CSS Subcommittee)

                                                              i.      Discussion.  There is an old patron record called SCLS Lost Items which was previously used to check out items that were claimed to have been lost in transit between libraries.  Previously, Delivery would reimburse libraries for items on this card.  As of March 5, 1999, they discontinued this practice.  On this record right now, are items marked Lost from 1997 through 2001 which totals around $3,000.  We would like to purge this record prior to the migration to Bibliovation.  There is no way to determine which library is owed these monies without Heidi doing barcode by barcode research to determine this.   

                                                            ii.      Motion: The CSS recommended that the SCLS Lost Items patron record be deleted and any charges associated with it should be waived.  IC approved the recommendation.

                                                          iii.      Vote: motion carried. 

4.      Reports

a.      ILS Report.  Vicki reviewed the August ILS report. 

b.      Report from the Circulation Services Subcommittee – July 24, 2018.  M. Navarre Saaf reviewed the minutes. 

c.       Report from the Collection Maintenance Subcommittee – July 11, 2018. H. Oliversen reviewed the minutes.

d.      Report from the Discovery Interface Subcommittee – July 18, 2018.  H. Oliversen reviewed the minutes.

5.      Items from clusters for initial discussion


6.      Discussion

a.      Purge of charges on patron records where the charge is more than 10 years old and less than $100 (CSS Subcommittee)

                                                              i.      Discussion.  Margie reviewed the discussion the CCS had regarding this topic at their 8/1/2018 meeting.  This would clear all charges, lost, overdue fines, damaged, new card fines, etc. regardless of the transaction library or library that ‘owned’ the charges. Cindy ran a report that listed totals owed by amount level; more than $100, more than $200, etc. that had a transaction date older than 1/1/2008.  The intent is to get these older charges cleared before our next migration and to look at this as a test for an annual practice of waiving charges older than a set amount of time.  After this rather large clean up, the list of charges older than, for example, 10 year, is a smaller, more manageable list.  If this this is approved by the libraries we would review what we learned from this year’s project and apply that information for a proposed annual cleanup. MCM reported that they stopped using UMS and they now submit some patrons to the Department of Revenue agency to get monies owed to the library from tax rebates. Would MCM be able to get a report of their patrons, so they could cancel accounts with the DOR for those patrons?  Yes.  The same issue is true for libraries still contracted with UMS; they too would need to review the list of patrons that would be eligible for this proposal and possibly cancel them from that process.  Our next step is to decide the best way to put information out there, have the libraries and clusters review the information and think about the potential impact and then have IC vote on it at the October meeting.  If this is approved in October, the waiving of charges would happen in November.  We would be able to have LibLime batch waive for us and also apply a small note on each affected record to indicate that the patron’s record had had older charges waived.  Many of these records have been expired for several years so it is likely that many of them would also be eligible for the December annual Purge of Inactive Patrons. The report with the summary totals will be sent out to all directors after this meeting.  They can request the report with the individual patron records for patrons with their library code. MCM asked if we could do something about automatically waiving fines/charges on juvenile records moving forward.  This is a local library policy and would be difficult to do on system level basis.  MCM can write a proposal and submit it to the CSS for review.           

b.      STO proposal: New adult patron category with limits between limited use and regular adult patron category (CSS Subcommittee)

                                                              i.      Discussion.  Vicki prefaced this discussion by stating that making changes to the ILS now before we migrate is not ideal.  Adding patron categories is a manual set-up that has to be done in every library’s account.  This is because fines and other rules are different at every library.  (246 rules x 61 libraries = 15,006)  Vicki requests that we not entertain new patron categories until after we migrate.  There may be other options in the new software.  Heidi is exploring the set-up to see if it can be more streamlined.  Until she does that, we won’t know how difficult it is to integrate these changes.  This proposed patron category should be reviewed by directors.  The committee felt that it doesn’t make sense to do this now and we need to know more about how it will work in Bibliovation.  We will table this proposal until we know more about how it would work after doing the set-up and then testing in Bibliovation.     

c.       MCM patron category proposal

                                                              i.      Discussion.  MCM proposed this and they weren’t thinking about the migration timeline with Bibliovation either.  They are okay with waiting for the new software to have the discussion.  This discussion will also be tabled we know more about how it would work after doing the set-up and then testing in Bibliovation.

d.      Investigating Self Check options

                                                              i.      Discussion. We are still having issues with Bibliotheca technical support.  We don’t really have a clear contact person at this point.  MCF calls a particular tech and they will create the support ticket and then they let Cindy know.  We’re ready to look at other options because we are dissatisfied with their customer service and see no sign of improvement. Some of what we will investigate will include Envisonware, Tech Logic, Bilbiovation’s self check option, MeeScan, etc.  H. Cox, B. Faherty and M. Navarre Saaf are willing to serve on the workgroup to investigate and evaluate other self check (and RFID) options.  Vicki will put out a call for volunteers and coordinate a meeting.

e.      Plan for fall ILS Users’ Summit

                                                              i.      Discussion.  Bibliovation demos are planned for October 31.

f.        Conduct Koha development survey

                                                              i.      Discussion.  This is a standing item for the agenda.  We’re currently working on development, so we will plan to do a survey next year.

g.      2019 ILS Planning

                                                              i.      Discussion.  This is another standing item for the agenda.  MCF is looking at Compare, which is comparable to Boopsie (digital library cards, push notifications, replacement for LibraryThing, etc.).

h.      Standardization of Circulation Issuing Rules Workgroup

                                                              i.      Discussion.  Vicki will coordinate scheduling a meeting for this and put out a call for volunteers.    


7.      Plan for Next meeting:  October 3, 2018

a.      Vote on purging patron charges

b.      Update on Bibliovation issuing rules Workgroup

c.       Discussion: Evaluate results of Koha Development Survey

d.      Discussion: 2019 Technology Plan: ILS section

e.      Discussion: Prep for ILS Evaluation – not necessary at this time.

f.        Discussion: Prepare for fall ILS Users’ Summit


8.      Adjournment at 12:04 pm.  B. Faherty moves to adjourn.  H. Cox seconded.  Vote: motion carried.



For more information about the ILS Committee, contact Vicki Teal Lovely.

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


ILS Committee/Agenda/08-2018