OWWLAC Meeting, March 25, 2014

Attendees

Rebecca Budinger (AVO), Lisa Gricius (WAR), Sandra Hylen (ONT), Theresa Streb (LYO), Diana Thorn (BRI), Stacey Wicksall (RJ)

Excused

C. Finger (GPL/Central)

Previous Meeting

OwwlacMeeting20140225

Old Business / Updates from Previous Action Items

New Business

Report from Evergreen Conference

• Version upgrade planning
  • PLS staff in very preliminary planning for specific Evergreen version upgrade (anticipated Spring 2015) and general schedule to follow for future version upgrades so that we do not get too far behind Evergreen developments but also do not stress our resources and members. The Evergreen community releases new software versions 2 times per year. PLS recognizes that upgrading on that schedule is not realistic for us. PLS will communicate to libraries regarding the 2015 upgrade closer to that date.
• Evergreen development
  • A major new development project in the Evergreen community is a redesign of the staff client. The goal is to develop a web-based client. This is projected to be a 2-year project. Pioneer is one of several funders for the 1st stage of development.
• Learn more about the Evergreen community
  • If interested - check out the Evergreen webpage: http://evergreen-ils.org/ to learn more about the community, software, etc. Also - there will soon be Evergreen t-shirts available!
• Authority files
  • When we migrated to Evergreen, we removed all of our authority files. PLS will be investigating re-inputting authority files in order to improve catalog search. Future versions of Evergreen have tools that will make this process easier. We anticipate rolling out authority files with the 2015 upgrade.
• Ideas for the OPAC
  • Bob and Lindsay came back from the Evergreen conference full of ideas for the OPAC - mainly revolving around making it more social media friendly and customizable by patrons. One immediate outcome: adding social media "share this" links to title records. Currently being worked on in the test server we have options to Like and Share to Facebook, +1 in Google+, post to Twitter, and pin to Pinterest.
• Library microdata for better web findability - http://schema.org/
  • This goal is working to develop consistent markup for webpages that will allow data to be more easily accessed by search engines. It is specifically targeted for structured data, or data that comes from a database and is presented via a web page - like library catalog records! The goal is to allow resources (like bibliographic records, or library hours) to be returned in a general web search. Some of the new Evergreen developments appear to have this in mind.
• Awesome box - http://awesomebox.io/
  • A fun, catchy, interactive kind of way to capture data on library materials that patrons think are "awesome". This project works with marking items as "awesome" and then creating web widgets, tweets, RSS feeds, etc. to share that info with the public. It was developed by the Harvard Library Innovation Lab. A few more websites to check out:
    • Presentation by Harvard Library Innovation Lab - http://librarylab.law.harvard.edu/talks/awesome-slides/#the-title-slide
    • School Library Journal article on the Brookline (MA) PL's Awesome Box - which looks like the TARDIS! - http://www.slj.com/2013/12/librarians/bigger-on-the-inside-brookline-ma-public-librarys-tardis-awesome-box/#_
  • Our discussion at OWWLAC centered around low-tech options, like "Awesome Boards" - have a physical awesome-item return box, then add a note card, or cover image to a poster board, similar to the Geek the Library boards (Stacey pointed out that foam core boards are available with lights!) or awesome item displays
  • This discussion segued into a discussion of libraries creating Chilifresh accounts (Macedon currently does this) and creating Chilifresh reviews using text that patrons have written. This could be a good complement to an awesome item box/board/display! Also, Chilifresh does support simple star ratings, if patrons do not want to write reviews.

Expired patrons can place holds

Do we wish to keep this setting (applied August, 2012) enabled?

Discussion: This setting will not negatively impact pull lists, hold queues, etc.If a patron is in bad standing (fines, overdues, etc.) they will be blocked from placing holds. It is important not to penalize patrons because of a regular, annual, verification process. It may help get patrons into the libraries.

Outcome: Keep "expired patrons can place holds" setting enabled

Increase Hold Limits

Suggestion: increase limit to 20 holds.

Discussion: Increasing the hold limit will make it easier for patrons such as homeschoolers who often have many hold items, regular high volume readers, and also patrons who have requested hold protected items. Holds on hold-protected items in particular are an imprtant issue, because patrons may have several holds on items that will not be filled for a long time, thus limiting the number of holds they can request in the meantime.

Concerns were raised regarding possible impacts on delivery volume, if suddenly more item are being requested and transited. Also of concern the impact on pull list volume and staff time. Overall, these concerns do not quite outweigh positive customer service.

Lindsay talked with Cindy Gardener, re potential delivery impact, her concerns and feedback aligned with OWWLAC discussion. She did mention that several of the routes: mornings in particular, are currently very close to full capacity. Delivery volume definitely needs monitoring. She requested reports if transit data for 2013 and forward, this can be used to monitor any unusual changes following the hold setting change.

Outcome: As of 4/1/14, increase the hold limit to 20 items for all users (patrons and staff). Review for 6 months. If immediate negative results occur, we will revert the hold limits

Enable hold setting: suspended holds do not count toward the total hold limit

If a patron has suspended holds, these holds will NOT count toward to 20-item hold limit.

Discusion: OWWLAC does not think this will pose any problem, or even abuse of holds/hold limits, and probably will not be heavily used. Anecdotally, patrons seem to use lists for "wishlist" type items they want to place future holds on. Staff may see a patron Holds list (from the patron account only, NO other holds list) with more than 20 items, but the suspended holds will have the hold status "suspended" so should not cause too much confusion.

Outcome: As of 4/1/2014, enable "suspended holdsdo not count toward hold limit" setting

Holding libraries responsible for replacing materials

In situations where loss/damage appears to be a library's responsibility, we do not have a recommendation for handling the item, billing, etc.

Discussion: general consensus is that these types of issues should be addressed by the relevant library directors, not via OWWLAC or PLS. We reviewed the OwwlacGrievance policy, in which the first step is director communication, then if that does not yield results, to refer the issue to the Automation Services Manager.

Outcome: No OWWLAC recommendation regarding library responsibility for replacing materials; issue to be submitted to PLSDAC for discussion

Extending due dates

Some library staff (different libraries) are abusing the ability to extend due dates - anywhere from 2 months to almost two years. Many of these items are borrowed from other libraries.

Discussion: Reviewed current recommendations/practice for editing due dates, which state that this is to be done when an item does not circulate according to local library loan durations (and only to match the local loan) and/or to provide positive customer service under extentuating circumstances.

Due dates should not be extented for extreme lengths of time. When working with another library's items, attempt to contact the library. Do not extend due dates in an attempt to circumvent holds. In general, be respectful of other libraries. Staff should not edit due dates for their own loans.

If a library notices abuses of the edit due date function, they should follow the OwwlacGrievance policy, in which the first step is director communication, then if that does not yield results, to refer the issue to the Automation Services Manager.

Outcome: OWWLAC reiterates existing recommendations regarding editing due dates and Grievance policy

Overriding renewal limits

Libraries overriding the 2-renewal limit on items owned by other libraries.

Discussion: This issue similar to the issue with editing due dates, some staff are renewing loans three, four, or more times. Reviewed current recommendations for renewals. In extenuating situations, particularly if the item is owned by the renewing library and there are no holds, the reneal limit can be overridden. It is not to be used as a means of avoiding a lost item bill, or to keep an item indefinitely. Do not override a renewal blocked because of pending holds.

If a library notices abuses of the renew items function, they should follow the OwwlacGrievance policy, in which the first step is director communication, then if that does not yield results, to refer the issue to the Automation Services Manager.

Outcome: OWWLAC reiterates existing recommendations regarding renewal limits and Grievance policy

Standardize placement of item barcodes

Can OWWLAC require/recommend standard location for item barcodes?

Discussion: This is a local issue and there would be no real, system-wide benefit.

Outcome: No OWWLAC recommendation regarding standardizing barcode placement

Other issues

Placing holds on multiple copies of same title

What is the policy regarding a single patron placing holds on multiple copies of the same title, such as by teachers, book groups, etc?

Discussion: When holds are being placed by techers, PLS's position is that they need to work with their school library and/or BOCES which are in place to support teaching/curriculum needs, or, to recommend that individual students use their own library card for holds/checkouts. For patron-run book groups, we also recommend individual members use their own accounts. For library-run bookgroups, a library staff account can be used. In general, "good OWWL etiquette" is the rule of thumb.

Limiting number of DVD Checkouts

How do other other libraries handle limiting the number of DVDs a single borrower may check out?

Discussion: Different libraries have different policies - limit per card, limit per household, limit for new DVDs different than limit for older DVDs. Practice also mixed when dealing with DVDs that arrive from other libraries to fill holds - some libraries limit number of DVDs owned by the library only, and do not count holds in the total; some include hold DVDs in the limit. Most libraries that limit DVDs do not check a patron's items out list to count currently checked out items. This is a local decision, enforced at the local checkout desk.

Policy review

OWWL Policy sections: Lost and Damaged Items, Holds, and Cataloging (if time allows)

Outcome: Deferred until next meeting

Actions

Outcomes

• Keep "expired patrons can place holds" setting enabled
• As of 4/1/14, increase the hold limit to 20 items for all users (patrons and staff). Review for 6 months. If immediate negative results occur, we will revert the hold limits
  
• As of 4/1/2014, enable "suspended holdsdo not count toward hold limit" setting
  
• No OWWLAC recommendation regarding library responsibility for replacing materials; issue to be submitted to PLSDAC for discussion
  
• OWWLAC reiterates existing recommendations regarding editing due dates and Grievance policy
  
• OWWLAC reiterates existing recommendations regarding renewal limits and Grievance policy
  
• No OWWLAC recommendation regarding standardizing barcode placement
  
• Policy review deferred until next meeting