Circulation Services Subcommittee Minutes

November 8, 2022

Phone/video conference

Action Items:

The CSS recommends creating new Item Types DVDSETWI14 and DVDSETWIJ14 with the default circulation policy of $0.00 fine, 14 day, no holds, 0 renew.

Present: Jeff Kauffeld (MAD), Margie Navarre-Saaf (MAD), Emily Harkins (WAU), Kelly Heasty (MCF), Erica Kersten (PIN), Eddie Glade (STP), Robin Behringer (STO), Jennifer Foster (FCH), Alyssa Moura (REE)

Absent: Barbara Henderson (MID), Steev Baker (SUN)

Excused: Zach Ott (BAR), Ronda Evenson (VER), Autumn Baumann (POR)
Recorder: Michelle Karls (SCLS)

SCLS Staff Present: Heidi Oliversen, Cindy Weber

1. Call to Order at 9:34 am

a. Introduction of guests/visitors

i. Alyssa Moura (REE) is a new member.

b. Changes/Additions to the Agenda

i. None.

c. Requests to address the Committee

i. None.

2. Approval of previous meeting minutes: September 13, 2022

a. Motion:  E. Kersten moved approval of the September meeting minutes.  K. Heasty seconded.

b. Discussion: none.

c. Vote: motion carried.

3. Action Items

4. Discussion

a. Create two new walk-in Item Types for TV series sets –  DVDWI14, DVDWIJ14 (MCM)

i. Discussion: E. Norton submitted a request for new items types for walk-in DVD sets.  MCM have walk-in DVDs, adult and juvenile, that they want to convert to sets.  They want additional SET item types because these items would have different circulation parameters than the previously approved item types for the multi-part DVD fictional TV series. The new item type codes would be DVDSETWI14 and DVDSETWIJ14, each with the default circulation policy of: $0.00 fine, 14 day, no holds, 0 renew. 

1. Motion: M. Navarre Saaf moved to create DVDSETWI14 and DVDSETWIJ14 item types with the default circulation policy of$0.00 fine, 14 day, no holds, 0 renew.  E. Glade seconded.

2. Discussion: If approved, the recommendation will be put on the agenda for the December 7, 2022 ILS Committee meeting. Libraries that charges overdue fines will have to submit requests to add Circulation rules if they use these items types and want to charge overdue fines.

3. Vote: motion carried.  This will go to the IC in December. 

b. 2022 Technology Plan Project: Provide online patron registration solutions for ILS.  Should this be carried-over and included in the 2023 Technology Plan Project list?

i. Discussion: Online patron registration solutions was a project on the 2022 Technology Plan.  This project was not worked on in 2022 – should this be added to the 2023 Plan.  Did ask the question at the ILS Summit and a few people indicated interest.  Several libraries have created their own online patron registration forms for use during the pandemic and are still using them.   M. Navarre does think this would be a great feature and it should be investigated.  H. Oliversen reviewed some notes from previous meetings to find the questions that have been asked in the past and are still relevant to find out if this is possible for our shared consortium.  If we wanted to provide an online form in LINKcat, we would work with the DIS to develop a specification.  But some of the older questions about doing this are still outstanding, like where would these applications be mailed to? Would we have to set-up an individual form per library so we could have a receiving email per library selected by the patron?  MID and MCM have been using their own online patron registration for a while.  STP developed a short form too.  It is emailed to their Circulation email so that staff can check the name and address and check for duplicate records.  It would be hard to automate this process because staff need to check each record manually and search for duplicates.  MCF also has a card application online.  Nowadays patrons just print it out at home, fill it in and then bring the form into the library.  They are issued a web-only card until they could come in and prove their address.   REE has one that goes to A. Moura’s email.  Patrons are issued a web-only card that will expire in 6 months.  Patrons must come into the library to upgrade it.  WAU also has one.  MAD has one and their process is similar to STP.  Patrons can prove their identity by submitting photo of ID and a card will be mailed to establish proof of address..    A. Moura thinks it would be nice to do this for smaller libraries who don’t have staff/time to do this on their own.  Could small libraries direct their patrons to other library web sites that have forms?  PIN would issue their patron a card, but it might not be their home library card.  J. Kauffeld chatted that they frequently issue cards from online patron forms to patrons living elsewhere in SCLS. Maybe SCLS could come up with a template based on what libraries already have that smaller libraries could use.  The group agreed that we should explore the option of what other libraries have and providing a template for those who don’t have one and want to provide this option.  There was consensus this should remain on the 2023 Technology Project plan list and options be investigated. 

c. Question about retention of Patron Reading History. As of 2022 patrons who retain their reading history have 11 years of data.  Should there be a retention limit for reading history? 

i. Discussion: M. Navarre Saaf asked what our capacity is because patrons really love it.  H. Oliversen said there isn’t a capacity per se but these long histories can slow down the software when you are pulling up their record.  Our default is not to retain reading history.  Patrons must enable it themselves or staff can do so on their behalf.  Right now we don’t have any limit.  SCLS is currently working on bringing our data retention procedures up-to-date and developing a policy.  During this review, H. Oliversen thought to ask this question of the group for input. H. Oliversen reviewed some of the archiving and regularly scheduled data purges that we already have in place. This is not a recommendation but a request for information and input. REE also encourages patrons to use another reading tracker (Beansprout).  M. Navarre likes the idea of keeping it for now.  Perhaps future development could be done so that patrons could export their reading history and email it to themselves as needed. Another “wish list” development idea was to allow patrons a checkbox to delete titles from their reading history (in the DL) if they wanted. PIN expressed interest in this option but M. Navarre Saaf does not think many patrons would take the time to use that.  We do have to make sure our retention history is consistent with privacy standards.     

d. Request volunteers to review revised sections of the Circulation Manual in preparation for the 7.02 upgrade.

i. Discussion: We don’t know when we will be upgrading.  There are still bugs and problems in the sandbox code that need to be fixed before we start our last round of testing and scheduling the Go Live for the upgrade.  They have fixed a lot of bugs and provided some new functionality, but they have also been fixing bugs they created in the sandbox.  Ex. C. Weber was testing after a point release and we got back a bug in the sandbox that was fixed in production.  We go through this every time.  H. Oliversen is working on updating all of the sections of the manual for the 7.02 version.  She hope to offer some live Circulation Update Webinars before the upgrade.  She wants to review/demonstrate the major bug fixes and new functionality in open sessions.  Of the changes coming, many are centered around the patron record.  H. Oliversen thinks that we need 4-5 people to commit to work on the Patron Record and Registration section.  You can work as a group or individually.  When she is done doing the preliminary revisions, she will compile a list of the Sections that need review and send in an email asking for volunteers.  The sections will be posted as Google docs so real-time revisions can be made.  LibLime is still working on some fixes, so she is reluctant to send it out for testing until they are done making changes to the code in the sandbox.  The request for testing will be sent after ILS staff have completed the preliminary round of testing once we know no more fixes/point releases will be imported.

e. BV updates/questions:  Have the specifications recently approved by the CSS been submitted to LL?  No, not submitted yet, but they are in the queue for submission. The “Forget password” reset specification has also not yet been submitted but the specification for development that will allow patrons to modify their own contact information has been submitted and we are waiting for the quote for level of effort/cost of development. 

5. Plan for Next meeting:  January 10, 2023 (Virtual)

6. Adjournment at 10:58 am

For more information about the Circulation Services Subcommittee, contact Heidi Oliversen.

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

Circulation Services Subcommittee/Minutes/11-2022