Local Holds Workgroup Agenda
February 7, 2023, 11 am
Phone/video conference
Action Items:
The Local Holds Workgroup recommends that Local Holds continue to be an option for interested LINKcat libraries. The rules under which the local holds operate will continue to be monitored and modified by the Circulation Services and Collection Maintenance Subcommittees. The workgroup will provide a proposal (parameters and procedures) for expansion of this project, if approved.
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, Kathy Baker (MFD) Cluster 6, 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, Bailey Anderson (BER) Cluster 8
Excused: None
Recorder: Michelle Karls (SCLS)
SCLS Staff Present: Heidi Oliversen, Amy Gannaway, Cindy Weber, Tim Drexler
1. Call to Order at 11:03 am
a. Introduction of guests/visitors
i. Kathy Baker is a proxy for Jill Porter at MFD today.
b. Changes/Additions to the Agenda
i. None.
2. Approval of previous meeting notes: December 6, 2022
a. Motion: M. Warren moved approval of the December meeting notes. M. Navarre Saaf seconded.
b. Discussion: none.
c. Vote: motion carried.
3. Discussion
a. Reports from libraries.
i. Discussion: No updates from members of the workgroup. H. Oliversen reminded the workgroup members that a link to the Data Dashboards that T. Drexler has created is located on the Circulation webpage with the other Local Holds/Use materials.
b. Form a recommendation for a vote on continuing this project. Elements to incorporate include:
i. Motion: E. Foley recommends that Local Holds continue to be an option for interested LINKcat libraries. The rules under which the local holds operate will continue to be monitored and modified by the Circulation Services and Collection Maintenance Subcommittees. K. Baker seconded.
a. Discussion: We will work on the specifics of the proposal in this meeting to be voted on at the April IC Meeting.
b. Vote: motion carried.
1. Time frame: like “Local Holds parameters must be removed after 60 days or less”.
a. Discussion: E. Foley reported that they see the most excitement from patrons about local holds in the first 30 days. She thinks 60 days is a good ending point. ACL staff do modify Local Hold/Use items if they see them sitting on the shelves too long. MFD started the original pilot and they had it set at 90 days. They did adjust to 60 days when the project expanded beyond their library. They haven’t noticed a difference since changing and agree that 60 day is a good setting. ROM likes 60 days as it seems to accommodate her patrons that are mostly “part-time” patrons (people who spend two weekends a month in the area using their library). At ROM if an item hasn’t been checked out in the first 30 days, they pull it off the shelf and modify the item parameters to fill holds at other libraries. Other libraries present agreed with the 60 day or less parameter.
2. Participation: Participating in this is not mandatory; it is up to the individual libraries to decide if they want to assign Local Hold/Use Parameters to new materials.
a. Discussion: The group agreed with this statement being added to the proposal.
3. Collection codes: Currently the project is only for new items with a BKAFI collection code; does this group want to recommend one of these two options or a different option for project implementation if approved:
a. A slow expansion of the project by designating the next collection codes to be included. New materials/Codes mentioned in previous meetings include BKANF, BKJFI, BKJNF, LP and DVDs.
i. Discussion: MFD is interested in expanding the Local Holds Project to Adult Nonfiction. What if a library doesn’t want any of their BKANF items to go to Local Holds? This is voluntary so that’s up to the library. What if a library sees a need to do this for another collection code? ACL doesn’t necessarily want a slow expansion. They want to expand to occasional adult non-fiction items and DVDs. Those items should be covered in these codes, so that is OK. MAD proposes only BKANF should be added at this time so we can look at data. If we move forward too quickly there might be consequences we see and it might be too much trouble to go back. Libraries are still transitioning from the Multi-part DVDs TV Series packaging change and adding new DVDs (features) to this seems like too much right now. The group agreed via consensus to add BKANF. After some discussion the group decided that we will wait on adding BKJFI, BKJNF, and LP to Local Holds. For DVDs, MFD would be happy with just the feature collection code. A. Gannaway mentioned that we could limit to feature films but libraries use TV series on the feature collection code as well. M. Navarre Saaf is comfortable with BKANF for now, and would like to make sure that creating dummy records, when the only item on a BIB is a Local Hold/Use item, is part of the proposal. Instructions for creating those records will be drafted and sent to this workgroup for approval prior to the April vote so that it is part of the procedure. Once libraries understand the process and are comfortable with it for only the BKAFI and BKANF, collection codes, maybe we can move quicker on expanding the project/process to include other collection codes. It gives us a chance to test the process with the dummy records.
4. Allow libraries to apply the Local Hold parameters to any new item they purchase?
a.
Discussion: H.
Oliversen reviewed the option with the group. S. Lee doesn’t like the lack the
lack of standardization for this and believes patrons will find it
confusing. This may pertain more to Dane County libraries whose patrons tend
to use multiple locations. The pilot project was limited so we could see data
for one code and move forward. Starting out with slow expansion might be more
beneficial for staff to get used to what they’re doing and come up with more
standardization. M. Navarre Saaf likes the idea of proceeding slowly so if
there are problems we can address them right away and a roll back would be
easier. Dummy records would be created for BIB records with a single or unique
item with Local Hold/Use parameters, so any patrons can place holds on that bib
record. COL agrees with slow expansion. They want to get comfortable the creations
of dummy records for unique items process down before expanding. If we notice
we’re adding a new series, is the library supposed to create the dummy record?
A. Gannaway stated that the library would have to do this because MAD Catalogers
wouldn’t necessary know it’s a unique item. We need to work out procedures and
come up with documentation for libraries. Libraries could do this when creating
BSEs. The procedure for libraries who are using GetIt might be more
complicated. SCLS would provide documentation on creating the dummy item
records, and would need to work out a report to find the dummy records after 60
days to clear them out.
5. If the first option is recommended, requests to include other collection codes can be submitted to the CSS for review/approval.
a. Discussion: The group agreed.
6. Two libraries submitted comments that the 14 day loan period and no renewal does not fit their standard loan period for new books. The 14 day loan period/no renewals was chosen to promote more circulations within the 60 day parameters, and that libraries could convert to “regular” item types if items weren’t circulating. Discuss and provide alternatives.
a. Discussion: These settings are also similar to what libraries use when placing new items in walk-in collections (no renewals) or on generic records, though the loan periods vary per library. Applying the local Hold/Use parameters to new materials is not mandatory so they can chose not to use Local Hold parameters for their new items. Patrons notice right away when items are listed as available on the title records and their holds are not being filled. We can discuss this in-depth at a later meeting. Local Holds/Use items are retained at the local library to provide access to local patrons (holds or walk-in checkouts) before sending items out to fill holds at other location. H. Oliversen will work on draft of proposal of procedure based on this discussion and send it out to the group for review via email.
c. Data update. (Tim)
i. Discussion: T. Drexler went over the data which does include January statistics. We still haven’t seen much change in Circulation. These trends are more seasonal fluctuations. The amount of time to fill holds hasn’t seen much change. Libraries have reported that some of the delays seen in the data, between hold placed date and the holds being filled can be attributed to delays in getting ordered materials from the publishers. Overall, libraries who chose to join the pilot tended to loan more items than they borrowed compared to the non-pilot libraries. This is not totally consistent throughout the data, but there is a trend.
4. Action Items
a. None.
5. Review Timeline
a. Work group continues to meet to study issues March 7, 2023
b. January/February Cluster meetings
c. ILS Committee meeting: Feb 1
d. January/February Information sessions: Jan 27, Feb 21
e. February Data Overviews: Feb 17, Feb. 23
6. Plan for Next meeting: March 7, 2023 at 11 am via phone/video conference
7. Adjournment at 12:51 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 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.
Local Holds Workgroup/Notes/02-07-2023