CCS News
MAY 30, 2014
FROM THE COMPUTER ROOM:
We are working closely with SirsiDynix on implementing a proposed working solution to the SMS notifications. We hope to have some resolution after our conference call on June 19th, so we can start implementing this method of
notification.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS:
On May 28 the Governing Board approved the recommendations below related to consistency of practice. We will change thresholds accordingly for everyone on July 9 unless we hear otherwise from a library.
1. Processing fee terminology: “Processing fee” should be used for normal pre-collections charges. Referral should be used for items sent to collection; Collection should not be used.
(Notes: 1) Only two libraries now use “Collection.” 2) If a report run by CCS restricts a library to only certain terminology, that is an allowable exception to this recommendation.)
2. It is the prerogative of the owning library to charge the processing fee for an item. Other libraries should honor that prerogative when processing payments. The Processing fee (as defined in number 1 above) should be standardized at $5 per item if any is charged. [Added cautionary note: if you use Mark Item Lost to process your item which incurred loss or damage due to circulation at another library, the circulating library's processing fee will be added. This should not be a problem because the fee should be standardized per this recommendation, but unless/until a library has set its fee in compliance with the recommendation, discrepancies should be noted and corrected.]
(Notes: 1) Some libraries have stratified fees depending on the type of material. The Task Force feels that this difference is reflected in the price; the labor involved in replacement is relatively equivalent. 2) If this recommendation is adopted, it should only apply from this point forward; no library is expected to make retroactive adjustments.)
3. The processing fee should not be included in the cost of the item. It should be added separately so that there is no confusion about whether to add it at the time of payment or not.
4. At its option, a library may accept replacements for its own items. However, replacements for another library’s item should not be accepted unless there is mutual agreement between the libraries involved.
(Notes: 1) Libraries may wish to articulate their policy via wording on bills, a sign, bookmarks, etc., so patrons won’t be proactive and bring in a replacement without prior approval. 2) The next update of the Processing Fee chart will have an added column with the library’s practice regarding replacements.)
The following recommendations apply to the delinquency thresholds set by CCS libraries.
5. Bills: $10 minimum threshold. This should be revisited six months from implementation of these recommendations to consider if too many blocks are resulting because of the recommended increase in allowable overdues; if so, $20 should be considered.
(Notes: 1) There was some support for $20 because we are recommending a higher threshold for overdues (#6 below), but based on feedback from the Circ and ILL Technical Groups at their most recent meetings, support seems to be well short of Critical Mass at present. 2) Some libraries have an issue with increasing the amount of outstanding financial obligations from patrons on the books; $10 seems to be the workable compromise. 3) The four CCS libraries set at $5 are all amenable to $10; in fact, Des Plaines has already changed back. Two of those libraries indicated Board approval would be required.)
6. Overdues: a minimum of 40 allowed is recommended.
(Notes: 1) This increase recognizes the trend toward self-service. 2) Some libraries pointed out that families can be abusive by maxing out several cards, but those cards can be blocked and are exceptions.
7. Maximum charges at one time: 150 allowed for the standard public User Profile for CCS libraries’ resident patrons is recommended.
(Notes: 1) Teachers can be given a separate Profile and thresholds.) 2) We ran a report on April 18 to see what the consequences of going from 75 to 150 would be; that chart is also attached. Only 59 “civilians” had between 75 and 150 items charged. That’s less than 2½ per library, so the impact of this change should be minimal. 3) Raising the threshold allows for the “lag factor” if a patron returns items that have not been checked in before the patron checks out more. At least two libraries factor this in already.)
8. Hold limit: As has been true in the past, the Task Force did not find grounds for a consensus.
9. The thresholds for Profile PUBLIC (users from outside of CCS who do not purchase cards or reside in Chicago) should follow the above recommendations where applicable.
CCS MEETINGS NEXT WEEK:
Thur., 6/5, 2:00, CCS: Enterprise Marketing Task Force
Fri., 6/6, 10-1 and 2-5, Niles: Enterprise Rooms Management Training (you must be registered)
