Local Holds Workgroup Notes

September 6, 2022, 11 am

Phone/video conference


Action Items:



Present: Erin Foley (ACL) Cluster 1, Renee Daley (ROM) Cluster 1, Lindsey Ganz (COL) Cluster 2, Eddie Glade (PCPL) Cluster 4, Meagan Statz (PDS) Cluster 5, Jill Porter (MFD) Cluster 6, Bailey Anderson (BER) Cluster 8, Nate Snortum (DCL) Cluster 9-10, Margie Navarre-Saaf, Michael Spelman, Molly Warren, Susan Lee, (MPL) Cluster 11-13

Absent: Kendra Kimball (WID) Cluster 2, Heidi Cox (MCF) Cluster 7

Excused: None

Recorder: Michelle Karls (SCLS)

SCLS Staff Present: Vicki Teal Lovely, Amy Gannaway, Heidi Oliversen, Tim Drexler


1.      Call to Order at 11:04 am

a.      Introduction of guests/visitors

                                                              i.      None.

b.      Changes/Additions to the Agenda

                                                              i.      None.

2.      Approval of previous meeting notes: 8/2/2022

a.      Motion: B. Anderson moved approval of the August meeting notes as amended.  M. Warren seconded.

b.      Discussion: J. Porter asked we change the language from “patron frustration” to “patron comments.”   The group approved this amendment.   

c.       Vote: motion carried. 

3.      Discussion

a.      Update from libraries

                                                              i.      None.

b.      Reminder about On Order items and Local Holds item type

                                                              i.      A. Gannaway sent an email stating libraries should not be using the new Local Hold item type for On Order items unless it’s in the library and being processed.  We will revisit this if the Local Holds pilot is approved.

c.       Surveying public library systems

                                                              i.      SCLS will create a google doc with a draft of questions for other library systems to get feedback on from this group.  We will review it at the October meeting and then get it out to the public library systems. 

d.      Questions submitted by Cluster 2:

                                                              i.      Is the vote to decide if everyone will be asked to participate in Local Holds?

1.      We have not come up with what this group would like the vote to be.  There’s some different directions.  Is participation required or options?  We need to come up with clear language as we did for the Multi-part DVDs pilot project. 

                                                             ii.      Will other genres be added to Local Holds, like adult nonfiction or DVDs or kids items?

1.      We should discuss this at future meetings because we don’t know the impact of Adult fiction right now.  The libraries can vote on whether to phase in other collections slowly or all at once. 

                                                           iii.      Can the 60 days be negotiated? The majority of Columbia County libraries would prefer a lesser amount of time for items to be on Local Hold.

1.      It is difficult to say at this point.  We have indicated that the 60 days should be the limit. 

                                                           iv.      Is the 60 days optional? Will libraries have discretion on what and how much they participate in and how long things remain as Local Holds?

1.      A library can choose to put these items back into circulation sooner than 60 days by changing the status/itype and then checking them in. 

                                                             v.      Will SCLS be creating reports to simplify the process for libraries to change collection codes, etc?

1.      A development specification to improve the Batch item edit has been submitted to LibLime.  Libraries would be changing the Item Type and Custom Status. There is an on demand report libraries can run themselves. Libraries can request new on demand reports by contacting Cindy Weber.  We will follow up with Cluster 2 and show them what’s available for this.    

                                                           vi.      If the pilot lasts until the end of December, why are we being asked to make decisions earlier? Reviewing the statistics and experiencing either empty shelves or filling shelves with un-circulating materials will take time to identify.

1.      If for some reason this doesn’t move forward, we wanted to end the pilot on a tidy date.  The pilot can go beyond the vote.  The reason why the decisions were earlier is we have had some requests from libraries.  These kind of projects can be time consuming.  The Multi-part DVD took a year and a half to work through.  We’re moving slowly because there is a lot of issues to work through.  We understand that we may not have enough data or experience in the live setting for libraries to make a decision by November or December.  This group should discuss this and can make a recommendation to extend the pilot by another six months.  ACL is OK with extending pilot and asked about the possibility of adding another format.  T. Drexler is developing reports, has identified the types of data that we will review, and he will be providing the data we have at the October meeting.  He has a pretty good hunch that we will not see huge changes (if any) in the data.  If all libraries are not participating, how would we get the full picture?  Can this be required?  How can a library vote on this if they didn’t participate?  MAD can’t participate until issues with branch clustering is resolved.  We are working on resolving this, but we are not sure how long it will take.   Should we do a survey of libraries?  If there is a Local Hold Item, would there be a way they can place holds where they only get access to their local hold material and not a copy from another library?  No.  Cluster 2 felt it was a lot of work and want to try to meet in the middle.  Can the first copy sit on the shelf, with a status similar to In Processing, until somebody picks it up and then when it is returned it can go out in the system?  We will review data we have at the October meeting and then discuss whether to extend the pilot/vote.             

                                                         vii.      The question of whether to choose a vote, based on individual libraries (weighted) or a vote, where all decisions are made via clusters, was also unresolved. The assumption is that it needs to be all by clusters or all by weighted vote, not a combination of the two—correct?

1.      For the Multi-part DVD project, they preferred to take it to All Directors for the vote.  The All Directors December meeting is a possibility for final vote.  The IC will decide this at the October meeting.   

4.      Action Items  

5.      Review Timeline

1.      April 6, ILS Committee discuss project and approve forming a work group

2.      Form work group to identify issues to study (including data)

3.      May 3, Work group meets

4.      May 10, Circulation Services Subcommittee: discuss parameters for pilot

5.      May 17, Work Group meets

6.      May 19, All Directors—update on project

7.      May 24, Work Group meets

8.      June 1, ILS Committee vote on pilot project (June 15 through December 30)

9.      If pilot is approved, the project progresses as follows

10.  Recruit pilot project participants and begin setup

11.  July 1, Pilot project begins

12.  Work group continues to meet to study issues through November 30 - Ongoing

13.  July 21, All Directors—update on project

14.  October 5, ILS Committee decides if vote should be done by ILS Committee cluster reps at November 17 All Director’s meeting or December 7 ILS Committee

15.  November 17 All Directors meeting: Work group provide information on project

16.  November 17 or December 7 vote

17.  December 30, pilot ends

6.      Plan for Next meeting:  October 4, 2022 at 11 am via phone/video conference

a.      Review data

b.      Revisit discussion topics

c.       System survey draft

d.      Ask libraries to fill out the form for input on how the pilot is going


7.      Adjournment at 12:13 pm


Parking Lot:

a.      Marketing / Talking points for patrons—done for pilot; tabled for now

b.      Data—tabled for now


For more information about the Local Holds Workgroup, 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.


Local Holds Workgroup/Notes/09-06-2022