Local Holds Workgroup Notes
August 2, 2022, 11 am
Phone/video conference
Action Items:
None
Present: Erin Foley (ACL) Cluster 1, Eddie Glade (PCPL) Cluster 4, Meagan Statz (PDS) Cluster 5, Jill Porter (MFD) Cluster 6, Heidi Cox (MCF) Cluster 7, Bailey Anderson (BER) Cluster 8, Nate Snortum (DCL) Cluster 9-10, Margie Navarre-Saaf, Molly Warren, Susan Lee, (MPL) Cluster 11-13.
Absent: None
Excused: Renee Daley (ROM) Cluster 1, Lindsey Ganz (COL) Cluster 2, Kendra Kimball (WID) Cluster 2, Michael Spelman (MAD), Cluster 11-13
Recorder: Michelle Karls (SCLS)
SCLS Staff Present: Vicki Teal Lovely, Heidi Oliversen, Amy Gannaway, Tim Drexler
1. Call to Order at 11:02 am
a. Introduction of guests/visitors. None.
b. Changes/Additions to the Agenda. None.
2. Approval of previous meeting notes: 6/30/2022
a. Motion: M. Navarre Saaf moved approval of the June meeting minutes. J. Porter seconded.
b. Discussion: none.
c. Vote: motion carried.
3. Discussion
a. Update
i. Discussion: MOO submitted a request to be added to the Local Holds pilot project. H. Oliversen is waiting to hear back from them. 20 libraries are participating (plus 3 branches). Pilot libraries – what have you noticed? How is it going? STP reported an issue with their branches. The RTH holds process seems to be taking precedence over the Local Holds process. They would really like clustering moving forward. Is this happening at libraries without branches? No, local holds are taking precedence. This is good to discover during the pilot project. H. Oliversen has created branch group settings for Local Holds in the Sandbox but the result is not producing the effect of clustering the holds. This is being reviewed by LibLime Development staff to see if they can identify what we need to do to produce the effect we want for branches. B. Anderson says patrons have noticed more new items on the shelf, which they appreciate. She has not heard negative comments from patrons. Libraries not participating in the pilot – what have you noticed? M. Navarre Saaf hasn’t heard any comments from any of the MPL staff. Staff are starting to notice more local holds in the catalog when placing holds for patrons. We will keep checking in with libraries on this subject. H. Oliversen reviewed the form where libraries can submit patron comments. There are not many. One patron is used to their library giving them 28 days for a new item and doesn’t like 14 day loan period. We could develop a survey to see if libraries to see how many are using Item Types with 28 day loan periods vs. 14 day loan periods for new items. The other patron complaint was related to on order items, which A. Gannaway will be reporting about next.
b. On Order items and Local Holds item type
i. Discussion: Yesterday a library reported that an item in the catalog had a local holds item type. It was something that was on Order and sent from GetIt Acquisitions. The item did not have Local Hold custom status. A. Gannaway ran a report and found some libraries were setting the Local Hold Item Type at the point of order. The local hold parameter is 60 days and if libraries are setting it at the point of order, and it could take libraries longer than 60 days to receive some orders. Should libraries not set this Item Type until they have the item in hand? H. Oliversen is concerned about applying an Item Type at the point of order, because patrons are unable to place a hold on that bib record if only there is only one item attached. These bibs allow the holds to build. M. Warren mentioned that even if library holds aren’t filled they still need to be able to place a hold otherwise it seems like a reference item. V. Teal Lovely said the rule is that you provide the same service to all patrons. If only copy exists in the system, anyone can walk in to the library to get that item. Hopefully, this is a relatively rare occurrence. Staff can place a hold for the patron by overriding the message so the item will go to the patron placing the hold after the 60 days in the local library. A. Gannaway will work on an email about this and send it out to pilot libraries (also add it to the FAQ, etc.) Do any libraries here object to asking libraries not to set the Local Hold Item Type at the point of order but set it when the item is in hand? No.
c. Surveying public library systems
i. Discussion: H. Oliversen will create a Google doc with some questions and send it out to the group to add to it or make changes. People should think about this and we will discuss it again at the September meeting.
d. Marketing / Talking points for patrons—done for pilot; tabled for now
i. Discussion: We will revisit this if Local Holds moves beyond the pilot process. We will park it for now.
e. Data—tabled for now
i. Discussion: We will review this in late fall. We need time for data patterns to accumulate. We will park it for now. E. Glade asked about looking at transit times (time books are in a truck going back). We are not sure how to track this because the system doesn’t retain this as a data point. T. Drexler will look into this and try to get snapshots for the group to look at.
4. Action Items
a. None.
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
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: September 6, 2022 at 11 am via phone/video conference
a. V. Teal Lovely would like to revisit single items and patrons not being able to place holds. We need to keep an eye on this. It would be better for them to place holds themselves instead of staff doing it for them. Do we need development? As a workaround, can we provide all patrons access to items in the meantime? Several ideas were shared for how this might be done.
b. October 5 ILS meeting – weighted All Directors vote vs. cluster vote at the December IC meeting
7. Adjournment at 11:50 am
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/08-02-2022