OWWLAC Meeting, Tuesday, January 28, 2014

1:30-3:30pm at PLSHQ

Previous Meeting Notes

OwwlacMeeting20131126

Present

Rebecca Budinger (AVO), Chris Finger (GPL/Central), Lisa Gricius (WAR), Sandra Hylen (ONT), Theresa Streb (LYO), Diana Thorn (BRI), Stacey Wicksall (RJ); Lauren Moore (PLS), Lindsay Stratton (PLS)

Agenda

2014 Committee Membership

• EAC Representatives
• EvergreenAdvisoryCommitteeBylaws Review
• PLSDAC rep

Objectives:

1. Do we need a formal Bylaws revision?
2. Select a PLSDAC rep for 2014

Actions:

• Reps - get feedback regarding representation via OWWLAC: are the interests of all size libraries represented on OWWLAC? General satisfaction with OWWLAC representation?
• LS - Locate OWWL Access Agreement
• LS - Add discussion of representation and Member Libraries Duties/OWWL Access Agreement to next agenda

Outcomes:

• Questions raised regarding OWWLAC committee representation by library size and geographic distribution, continued discussion at next meeting
• Questions regarding Article XII: PLS Member Libraries - Duties, continued discussion at next meeting
• Sandra Hylen will be the represent OWWLAC at PLSDAC meetings

Discussion:

On reviewing the Bylaws:

Representation according to size and county - representatives currently selected so that all four counties are represented, with every attempt to ensure small, medium, and large libraries are equally represented; members generally represent libraries from their own counties. According to the bylaws: of 7 seats, 1 is reserved for Central, the remaining 6 are selected based on a formula of ranking all libraries by previous year total circ, dividing the list into thirds, then selecting 2 representatives from each part. Each county must have at least one representative.

PLS Member Libraries' duties and OWWLAC recommendations - members questioned this language: "PLS Member Libraries and their staff are required to follow the recommendations passed by OWWLAC, as per the signed OWWL Access Agreement." Queries: if OWWLAC makes "recommendations" only, how/why are libraries "required" to do anything? Where is the line between ILS-related policy and real policy? OWWLAC members unfamiliar with the exact language of the OWWL Agreement, what does this refer to? Should this language be changed? We will discuss these issues - with more information - at the next meeting, to determine if changes are necessary.

Other discussion:

Communication of OWWLAC business - committee members should solicit feedback and input from their constituents regarding general concerns, and to answer questions needed to make OWWLAC decisions; facilitator (Lindsay Stratton) will continue to report OWWLAC outcomes to all member libraries via PLS Notes. Members are encouraged to submit feedback/input to their representative or directly to Lindsay Stratton.

Processing Fees Survey results

Processing Fees Summary

• 32 of 42 libraries responded to survey
• 27 libraries do NOT use any sort of processing fee
  • 8 state that they charge full retail price for replacement even though they purchase materials at a discount – this is considered a sufficient markup to cover processing
  • 10 say they might consider using processing fees
  • 8 say they are not interested in processing fees
• 5 libraries DO use processing fees
  • 1 library has automatic lost item processing fees applied
  • 2 libraries apply manual bills after an item becomes lost
    • 1 library charges $5 for books, $10 for AV materials
    • 1 library charges processing fees only for lost components: booklets, instructions, bags for sets * 2 libraries roll processing fees into the item replacement price

Other comments

• Damaged materials are trickier - should have further discussions about handling damaged materials
  • 1 library mentioned a negative experience when their patron was billed by another library for an item that the owning library considered damaged, but the circulating library did not. This library further added that the fee charged was too much.
  • 1 library mentioned that they charge separate bills for damaged components, such as barcodes, plastic covers, etc. – things that are repairable

Automatic Processing Fee setup

• Set up by library
• Only supports one fee amount (per library), regardless of material type
• Option to void or retain processing fee bill when item is returned

Possible Recommendations for Lost Materials Processing Fees

• Libraries that do use processing fees should set up the system-generated bills, to be created at the same time the item becomes lost (works for both staff marked lost items, and overdue-lost items); OR roll the fee into the item price
• Processing fees are NOT required
• Any library deciding to start using processing fees should use one of the standard methods, NOT manual after-the-fact bills; contact PLS to set up automatic processing bill if needed

Objectives:

1. Make a formal recommendation for the application of processing fees bills

Actions:

• LS - follow up with the libraries impacted by this change
• LS - update documentation and communicate the recommendation to member libraries

Outcomes:

• OWWLAC recommends that libraries choosing to assay processing fees for lost materials will either: roll the fee into the item price or use the system-generated Lost Materials Processing Fee bill. No libraries should create manual bills, after the fact

Discussion:

All members agree that the customer service implications of these after-the-fact bills warrant a system wide change. Discussed the importance of contacting owning libraries whenever possible to resolve questions regarding materials bills/etc. Reiterated that monies received for overdue and miscellaneous type bills can be kept by the payment library, that only money for materials-related bills (lost, damaged) must be forwarded to the owning library.

Brief discussion of issues relating to damaged materials, whis is deferred for another meeting.

Reports update

• Desk Activity Reports
  • Reports Evergreen Activity Dashboard
  • Local Activity
  • Circ by Day and Hour
• Reports Ad Hoc Reports list expanded
  • Full options not yet (as of 1/21/14) available to members

Objectives:

1. Review new options available
2. Reports training needed - generate suggestions for topics

Actions:

• All - contact libraries re: questions/needs about using the reports; find member libraries who are willing to present their strategies/tips
• LS - present new report options to OWWLUG (Friday, 1/31)

Outcomes:

• Libraries can resume submitting custom report requests

Discussion:

Evergreen Activity Dashboard and Local Activity reports were created as a result of requests for "how busy is my library?" type data. These are for trend analysis only, not statistics. The Dashboard provides at a glance information for the current day, the Activity Report provides historical data.

The other reports released had previously been limited to PLSHQ staff only and available by member library request. PLS staff determined that there were no reasons not to make these directly available to member libraries. OWWLAC members very happy with the Magazine Circ report!

The moratorium on custom reports is lifted - if member libraries have specific reporting requests to make they may do so; there are, however, there are no guarantees! Lindsay is still learning the Evergreen database structure and reporting tools. Theresa discussed a need for reports detailing payments received by workstation; billing type reports, beyond the limited Cahs Report, seem to be a popular need. Report requests will be prioritized based on how useful they are to all libraries, particularly reports that will involve a great deal of development work.

Policy Review

Please review the policies statements currently listed on the OWWL Policy page, in Patrons section. If you think other patron-related issues should be added, bring those with you for discussion.

Objectives:

1. Update existing policies for current ILS as needed
2. Delete outdated policies
3. Recommend new policies

Actions:

• All - gather feedback re: registration paperwork retention
• All - gather feedback re: DOB entry format: 1/1/1970 vs. 02/13/1970
  • Advantage of exact month and day is to differentiate patrons with same name, some also have very similar DOBs; patron security
• LS - Add continued patron policies review to next meeting agenda

Outcomes:

• Standard Registration form, annual account expiration, pre-expiration email notices, renewing accounts via phone recommendations reviewed
• Patron policy review continues next meeting

Discussion:

Previous agenda items ran long, leaving only a little bit of time for policy issues.

Questions raised regarding Out of System patrons/cards: Which libraries charging for OOS cards? Some libraries vs. all libraries - when a few libraries charge for OOS cards, patrons tend to visit neighboring libraries who do NOT charge, what about OOS patrons and OWWL2Go? OOS patrons are not blocked from OWWL2Go.

Actions

• Reps - get feedback regarding representation via OWWLAC: are the interests of all size libraries represented on OWWLAC? General satisfaction with OWWLAC representation?
• LS - Locate OWWL Access Agreement
• LS - Add discussion of representation and Member Libraries Duties/OWWL Access Agreement to next agenda
• LS - follow up with the libraries impacted by this change
• LS - update documentation and communicate the recommendation to member libraries
• All - contact libraries re: questions/needs about using the reports; find member libraries who are willing to present their strategies/tips
• LS - present new report options to OWWLUG (Friday, 1/31)
• All - gather feedback re: registration paperwork retention
• All - gather feedback re: DOB entry format: 1/1/1970 vs. 02/13/1970
  • Advantage of exact month and day is to differentiate patrons with same name, some also have very similar DOBs; patron security
• LS - Add continued patron policies review to next meeting agenda

Outcomes

• Questions raised regarding OWWLAC committee representation by library size and geographic distribution, continued discussion at next meeting
• Questions regarding Article XII: PLS Member Libraries - Duties, continued discussion at next meeting
• Sandra Hylen will be the represent OPWWLAC at PLSDAC meetings
• OWWLAC recommends that libraries choosing to bill for processing fees on lost materials will either: roll the fee into the item price or use the system-generated Lost Materials Processing Fee bill. No libraries should create manual bills, after the fact
• Libraries can resume submitting custom report requests
• Standard Registration form, annual account expiration, pre-expiration email notices, renewing accounts via phone recommendations reviewed
• Patron policy review continues next meeting

Next Meeting

Tuesday, February 25, 2014