ILS Committee Minutes
December 2, 2020, 10 am
The IC approved the 2021 Technology Plan: ILS section.
Foley, ACL (1), Cathy Borck, WID (2), Suzann Holland, MRO (3), Eddie Glade,
PCPL (4), Eric Norton, MCM (6), Heidi Cox, MCF (7), Phil Hansen FCH (8), Nate
Snortum, DCL (9, 10), Margie Navarre Saaf, Susan Lee, MAD (11 -13)
Absent: Emily Judd, SKC (5)
Excused: Molly Warren, MAD (11 -13)
Recorder: Michelle Karls (SCLS)
SCLS Staff Present: Amy Gannaway, Heidi Oliversen, Vicki Teal Lovely, Martha Van Pelt
1. Call to Order at 10:03 am.
a. Introduction of guests/visitors
i. T. Marie Maes from MAD.
b. Changes/Additions to the Agenda
i. M. Van Pelt added under Discussion: ILS Committee for 2021. C. Borck and E. Judd have completed their service on the ILS Committee as of this meeting. Thank you so much for your contributions on this committee.
c. Requests to address the Committee
2. Approval of previous meeting minutes: October 7, 2020
a. Motion: E. Norton recommended approving the October meeting minutes. S. Holland seconded.
b. Discussion: none.
c. Vote: motion carried.
3. Action Items
a. Approve 2021 Technology Plan: ILS section
i. Motion: H. Cox moved to approve the 2021 Technology Plan. M. Navarre Saaf seconded.
ii. Discussion: Goal 2 is mostly for ILS matters. The digital library card will be done this year through Solus. The Solus mobile app will also be completed. The RFID conversion projects have started with the CARES Act grant and 5 small libraries benefitted from that. Since then, another library is starting an RFID conversion project. It is a primary goal for SCLS to support these libraries that are converting to RFID.
iii. Vote: motion carried.
b. Approve 2021 ILS Development Plan
i. Discussion: We do not have a development plan this year, which is tied to the voting process. There will be another update to Bibliovation, which will be discussed under Reports.
c. The Circulation Services Subcommittee recommends changing the Reduced Transportation Holds (RTH) setting in Bibliovation from the current 365 days down to 120 days.
i. Motion: This came from the Circulation Services Subcommittee.
ii. Discussion: E. Norton mentioned that we moved to 365 days in March and now the virus is worse. Is it a good idea to make this change now? M. Navarre Saaf pointed out that we made the change to 365 days when delivery was completely shut down. As long as delivery is still open and moving materials, there is no longer a need for the setting to be 365 days. The Libraries Bounce Back web page lists the quarantine periods for items at each library. C. Borck is concerned that there are some things getting stuck and libraries are not always doing their picklist which has caused problems recently. Should we wait to implement this for a few months? H. Oliversen mentioned that RTH is for things that are returned to the library, so the recent picklist issues are a different problem. It’s only been a few instances and H. Oliversen has asked libraries to contact her if they are having issues filling their picklist. We can pass the report for libraries who need help or have to close due to COVID. Overall, most libraries seem to be filling all the holds requests they can on their reports. We have not yet set a time to make this change, so we could wait until the beginning of the mid-January 2021. V. Teal Lovely said that postponing this date doesn’t matter much. If delivery has to shut down at some point for a lockdown, libraries would not be checking in items. Delivery is not going back to more than one day of quarantine on items, which is following state and federal guidelines.
iii. Vote: motion carried.
a. ILS Report
i. V. Teal Lovely reviewed the ILS Report.
b. Circulation Services Subcommittee – November 10, 2020 Meeting
i. M. Navarre Saaf reviewed the minutes from the November CSS Meeting.
c. Collection Maintenance Subcommittee – November 11, 2020 Meeting
i. A. Gannaway reviewed the minutes from the November CMS Meeting.
d. Discovery Interface Subcommittee – November 18, 2020 Meeting
i. A. Gannaway reviewed the minutes from the November DIS Meeting.
5. Items from clusters for initial discussion
a. Review 2021 ILS Calendar
i. Need for Annual ILS Evaluation and User’s summit
ii. Discussion: V. Teal Lovely reviewed the 2021 calendar. We did have an annual joint meeting scheduled with Technology to discuss the LSTA grant which is no longer necessary as the grants have changed. E. Norton asked if the Fall Summit could be a time to do development requests so libraries can still give feedback on the ILS without saying we’re going to switch vendors. A marketplace analysis could be done every five to seven years to see if there’s anything else out there. PLA is a great time to get information on other ILS vendors. This is an ongoing process as ILS and library staff attend ALA and PLA. In August, we can include a marketplace discussion of ILS and peripheral products. Committee members can report on what they’ve discovered. We will continue to focus on development in the second half of the year. The group decided to remove the Annual ILS Evaluation and to leave the User’s Summit on the calendar. We can decide by the marketplace discussion when a good time to investigate new vendors/products would be. We will revise the calendar based on today’s discussion and bring it back to the February meeting to vote on.
b. RFID Initiative
i. Motion: The ILS Committee recommends an initiative to support the conversion to RFID of the materials of all SCLS libraries within seven years for the purposes of increasing the efficiency of resource sharing. This is in support of an existing policy: "Non-RFID libraries allow other libraries to place RFID tags in items received to fill holds. Tag insertion by RFID libraries is voluntary". South Central Library System intends to support the initiative by implementing the use of RFID in automating its system-wide delivery service. M. Navarre Saaf moved. H. Cox seconded.
ii. Discussion: This topic came out of the pandemic. RFID is a way to reduce touches and promote self-checkout. The price for RFID tags has dropped significantly and is now more feasible for smaller libraries. We now have 6 small libraries doing RFID tagging projects. We’ve been talking for a few years about whether Delivery should get a sorter. If all items are RFID tagged, a sorter works better. Libraries with RFID tagged items and offering open holds are currently tagging other libraries items to better serve their patrons. One of the libraries that is considering joining LINKcat asked if the LSTA grant could be used for an RFID conversion project. DPI said grant funds can be used for RFID conversion if it’s a requirement of the system (as part of joining the ILS). When SCLS moves to a new building, we are talking about getting a sorter, so we are moving in that direction. We would like to start an official initiative that by the end of five years/seven years, all libraries would be tagged with SCLS’s help (grants, kickstart, training, etc). We have already gone over tipping point. Thirty five buildings in LINKcat have been tagged and twenty two buildings have not. S. Holland asked if libraries would be ejected from the ILS if they don’t comply with this. No, libraries would not be ejected. S. Holland expressed concerns about library budgets being tight and ongoing costs. One benefit toward moving to RFID is that we could potentially eliminate yellow Post-Its for sending holds in delivery. There would be greater efficiency down the road. Self-checks also help with staffing issues. E. Foley said that it’s not the cost that is holding her back but she doesn’t see it benefitting her library. ACL has a mainly older population that is fairly uncomfortable with technology and want staff interaction to check their accounts. C. Borck agrees. S. Holland mentioned that ongoing costs are concerning and that it didn’t make a dent in staffing needs at her previous library. She also doesn’t think LSTA is the best method. The price of tags has come down drastically in recent years. There are system-wide benefits and a good amount of libraries are doing this already. Delivery could potentially help tag items in the future because it would benefit them. E. Norton said the only materials that go out for holds are the only ones that need to be tagged and we don’t need to require libraries to tag their items. There is an existing policy in place and libraries are doing this now. We should focus on resource sharing for the statement to get support from DPI. SCLS is behind this for their own delivery purposes and sharing materials.
iii. Vote: motion carried.
c. Workgroup for evaluating circulation of multi-part DVDs
i. Discussion: A. Gannaway reviewed the proposal that came from MAD. The proposal applies to TV and mini-series DVD sets, which are now are circulated as separate discs. They would like to circulate these items together instead of separately. The CSS and CMS discussed this and they would like the IC to create a workgroup to review this. The members would be made up of subcommittee and IC members. It would also be open to other library staff interested in participating. The members would need to represent both Circulation and Cataloging perspectives. The workgroup would investigate the pros and cons of changing the policy and ultimately make a recommendation on whether to change the policy or keep it the same. We will start recruiting members and present this at the February meeting.
d. ILS Committee Members for 2021
M. Van Pelt mentioned that D. Bird (POR) will be the new Cluster 2
representative and L. White (PDS) will be the new Cluster 5 representative.
7. Plan for Next meeting: February 3, 2021
a. Introduce new cluster reps
b. Cluster Rep Orientation
c. Action: Approve 2021 calendar
d. Recommendation for Workgroup members
8. Adjournment at 12:08 pm
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.