CUWL Resource Sharing Policies/UB Implementation Committee

Summary of Meeting: March 19, 2001

(emailed to CUWL 4/17/01)  - REV LD (8/9/01)

 

 

Committee members: Cleo Powers (EC), Diana Slater (Stout), Michelle Strange and Bill Doering (LC), Tanner Wray (Mad), Lorie Docken and Kathy Schneider.  All members present at meeting.

 

 

Assessment of current status of UB functionality as related to CUWL Resource Sharing Policies

 

General loan period:

·       Shall be a minimum of 28 days (not including 2 days in transit) with a renewal option if the item is not on hold or recall.

 

REVISION to loan period as approved by CUWL, 4/26/01:

The loan period of all UB materials will be 28 days except for videos and curriculum materials.  The loan period for videos and curriculum materials will be 14 days.  The UB test will be for the “first twelve months” during which data is collected to assess any problems and conflicts. 

 

 

BETA Status:

No renewal (group decision); no recall or hold (technical reality).

            (Because there is no recall or hold capability in this version of the software, group             recommends no renewal for the present)

 

 

Short term loans:

·       The Loan Period for materials that libraries have designated for short term loans (including audio-visual items) may be limited to 14 days.  Campuses are encouraged to make full use of “media booking” to avoid potential conflicts with classroom use of videos.

 

BETA Status:

28 days for all UB for “first twelve months” during which data is collected to assess problems and conflicts.  NOTE: Committee will communicate confirmation of this loan period to the Curriculum Group for them to reconsider their previous recommendation.

 

(NOTE: Endeavor’s Media Scheduling module is not very functional per Beta sites)

 

“Loans To:”

·       Material will be checked out directly to the User, not to the user’s library

 

BETA Status:

No problems encountered.

 

 

Pick Up:

·       Material will be held for pick-up by the remote borrower only for seven days after which it will be returned to the lending library.  (NOTE: Within Universal Borrower the pick up site may be different from the user’s “home” campus)

 

BETA Status:

 

BETA Status:

At this point, it is not clear if the “hold shelf life” for UB items can be different from the “hold shelf life” established by local campus.  If not, the campus local definition will apply to UB items.

 

There is no separate Hold Shelf Life parameter for UB; thus, the Hold Shelf Life established by local campuses in the Circulation Group Definition will apply to local as well as UB items.  Campuses should be encouraged to standardize on a 7-day Hold Shelf Life.

 

Overdue/fines/borrower limits:

·       Owning library will send overdue notices directly to the user.

 

BETA Status:

UB overdue notices can be sent directly to user though note discussions under “Other Items of Concern, “ point #1, and Stout’s comments about patron records at the end of this document. 

 

·       No fines for “remote borrowers.”

 

BETA status:

It is possible to configure no overdue fines for UB patrons; however, there are some wrinkles in setting up a fee structure for lost items.  In the Circulation Group Definition, there is an option to “include the max. fine amounts for lost items.”  Some campuses exercise this option as a supplement to the lost-item processing fee; however, this runs somewhat contrary to the notion of no fines for UB patrons.   Unfortunately though, this Circ. Group Definition parameter is configured at the circ. level and applies to local as well as UB items.   

 

The Committee will survey campuses on lost item replacement fees and assess the disparity in campus policies.  It may be feasible to come up with some uniform lost item replacement fee.  At some point, the Committee could also encourage campuses to not exercise the “max fine amount for lost items” option to achieve some consistency across UW libraries. 

 

It was hoped that a uniform replacement fee could be established for UB items that would not affect local campus policies.  Given that UB functionality is so integrated into local circulation though, it is not possible to have separate policies.  Rather, UW libraries may be asked to come to some agreement on replacement fees, recognizing that those fees will apply to both local and UB items. 

 

Docken and the UB beta sites did discuss this problem area with Endeavor during one of their weekly conference calls.  Endeavor explained to the group the interaction between UB and local circ. system.  Endeavor indicated that per the requirements UB would not have its own circ. parameters.

 

·       No limit on the number of items circulating per user for “remotes. ”

 

BETA Status:

No problems encountered

This is a significant problem area.  Appears to be no way to separate policies for UB from policies for local campus users due to configuration structure.  Docken will communicate our major concern to Endeavor seeking modification of UB as soon as possible.

 

(Subsequent to this meeting at a Beta testers’ conference call, Endeavor indicated that this is not something that will be changing soon, if at all)

 

Delinquent Borrowers/user blocks:

·       Any user “blocked” by on his/her home campus is “blocked” on all campuses.  No blocks will be placed on remote borrowers; a campus will only place a block on their own users that will then be honored by all campuses. (Limited blocks are possible currently through direct personal communication with the “home” library)

 

BETA Status:

No problems encountered

 

 

Recalls:

·       If an item being requested is not available in the home campus library, users will be directed to another UW-owned copy of the item.

·       If an item being requested is not available within the home campus library and there is no other copy within the UW libraries, the user will be directed to send message to home library staff.  Staff will consider purchase of the item, if possible, or determine whether a recall or interlibrary loan request is appropriate.

 

BETA Status:

No capability for UB to guide user as suggested by policies

 

Subsequent comments from Committee member: 

Endeavor has indicated that we can modify the messages that appear on our screens.  We still need to determine what the current messages are used for.  It is possible that we could change a note to see reference staff for help or direct the person to select another copy.  I have not been able to find where we would edit the notes, and I have not tried to yet because we are still trying to shake down which note appears when.  Endeavor currently does have a note that sometimes appears in an unsuccessful request that does refer the person to the Circulation Desk or Reference if there is a problem, but there are a variety of reasons why the problem may be there.  For those in the beta test it may be due to faulty software, but it also might mean that they are blocked in the system for a number of reasons.  Reasons could be owing money for lost books, hitting their limit on how many books might be checked out via UB or they have too many overdues.  We will need to do further experimenting.

 

As far as I can tell Endeavor’s standard notes are:

·       “return to record” (this seems to appear when you have been unsuccessful but this note also seemed to appear when I put a hold successfully (I thought) on a local book),

·        “There are no items available to satisfy your UB Borrowing Request, or your borrowing privileges may have been suspended.  Please check your patron information page to be sure you have no outstanding fines or fees”

 

Lost Material Replacement:

·       When the owning library has exhausted the Overdue process and sends the user an invoice they will also send notification to the user’s home campus giving that campus an additional 28 days to locate the item.  After that period the user’s home campus is obligated to pay to replace the lost material.

 

BETA Status:

Again, tThe lost materials replacement interval is tied to the general circulation policy definitions.  Thus, there is the same problem as noted above in “overdues/fines.”   As it stands now, the same lost interval that is applied to regular borrowing will be applied to UB borrowing.  The Resource Sharing Committee had also hoped for uniformity in replacement fees for UB.  Given that Lost Item Replacement Fees are determined in the local Circulation Group Definitions, there will be variation.  The Committee would like to survey campuses regarding lost item replacement fees.  If differences are minimal, the Committee would like to encourage uniformity. 

 

 

Holds:

·       Users will have the capability of placing “holds” on items that are not currently available

 

BETA Status: 

Not currently possible in UB

 

 

Return of Materials

·       Items borrowed may be returned to any UW campus.

·       The campus receiving a returned item will record “in transit” status and ship the item back to the owning library.  The individual user’s responsibility ends at this point.  When an “in transit” does not get returned to the owning library, it is the owning library that must initiate follow-up action as needed.  The cost of replacing materials determined to have been lost “in transit” will be covered by a central fund.

·       The owning library is urged to note the status of “lost” or “missing” materials in the catalog as soon as possible.  

 

BETA Status:

Concern with lack of tracking information once item put “in transit.”  Owning library has no information until item actually charged to user (at the other end of transit process) and then information is very limited.  Note: no “central fund” exists at the present time.

 

            NOTE: We have yet to see any reports from UB to fully evaluate tracking

            Information or the lack thereof.

 

 

Request Handling:

·       An item “held” by a remote borrower will not be circulated to a local borrower who finds the item on the shelf before library staff has retrieved it to fill the remote request. (Note that the local user will not know that the “hold” is for a remote user)

 

BETA Status:This is currently not possible in UB.  While one UB user cannot over-ride request from another UB user, a user at the library owning the material is able to check out the item in the interim period; local library staff at this point would have no indication that a UB request in being processed.

 

If a UB call slip has been generated but an in-house patron beats library staff tTo the shelf, the in-house patron will be able to check out the item.  Local lLibrary staff will have no indication that a UB request has been placed for the item until the UB call slip queue has been processed.

 

 

OTHER Items of Concern/Items to be Addressed/Recommendations:

 

1.     Issues that Campuses (not libraries) must address:

a.     Availability of complete and up-to-date mailing addresses for users.

b.     Availability of email addresses for users.

c.      Lack of ID cards for some Distance students

 

2.     Issues Committee will address:

a.     Lost Item Replacement Fees – Committee would like to assess how wide the disparity in campus policies.  IF differences are minimal, then Committee will “push” for uniformity.

b.      “Not Filled” Messages etc - Committee needs to give more thought to options for guiding users when UB request not filled.

c.       Short Term Loan Issue/Curriculum Materials –

(1).  Committee is in the process of collecting data from each campus       regarding current organization and handling of curriculum materials.

(2). Committee will recommend that Curriculum Sub-Committee provide specific guidance regarding data to be collecting to assess impact of resource sharing policies on these materials.  It is important that we collect hard data rather than anecdotal information.

 

3.     Summary of Committee Recommendations:

a.     Standard loan period of 28 days for all UB for “first twelve months” during which data is collected to assess any problems and conflicts.

b.      Communicate to Endeavor major concern about Overdues/Fines/Lost Item Replacement Fees configuration options.

c.      Limit UB access to UW faculty, staff, and students for the initial year of service.  That is, defer access by affiliated users etc. until the bugs are worked out of the system.  NOTE:  Definition and handling of affiliated users is left to campus discretion.

 

 

FYI – Tabulation of Curriculum Sub-Committee survey (as of 3/21/01)

 

Campus            Volumes in Curric. Collection            Circ. Period            Separate Location Code

 

EC                               39,500                                     7 days                         Yes

GB                               13,569                                     28 days                Yes

LC                               17,500                                     4 wks                          Yes

Mad IMC                   12,000                                     28 days                No

Milw.                         44,797                                     2 wks                          Yes

Oshkosh                    14,800                                     7 days                         Yes

Pks

Pltte

RF                                 9,831                                     28 days                Yes

SP                               18,411                                     3 wks                          Yes

Stout                          12,000                                     7 days                         Yes     

Sup

Wht

Colleges

 

 

Issues that have arisen subsequent to meeting – will be discussed by the group:

 

1.  Patron Records  - from UW Stout:

 

You may remember that at the meeting I asked Cleo about one of her patrons who was indicated as “restricted” in the Eau Claire database.  Students, staff and faculty at Eau Claire apparently can indicate to the “powers that be” that they want to restrict access to their personal information in the main campus database.   Apparently, the federal law that allows people to do this has to with spousal abuse but can be interpreted to cover much more.  For some time Eau Claire people have been able to request limitations of access to their personal information and can request that only their campus addresses or e-mail addresses be available all the way down to nothing being available other than their names and ID’s.  UW-EC’s Library staff may not then be able to send overdues, bills or notification slips of items being available.   What Cleo has resorted to is filing this paperwork, so in case she receives complaints from these patrons, she can prove to them that, if she had been allowed to contact them, she would have notified them of the problems and they wouldn’t be blocked or fined large fines etc.  If the situation becomes serious enough, she can talk to the Dean of Students about the situation, and she might be allowed access to this information.  However, the UB libraries will see only what Eau Claire’s Library sees in its patron file, and we may simply see a stub with name and i.d number.   We will have no way to bill unless it is via the UW-EC Library which may have to act as our proxy by going to the Dean of Students or whoever might be necessary to obtain help in collecting money. 

        I can’t get a feel of how prevalent this restricted patron information is within UW Libraries or how far it may go, but this certainly make create some interesting problems for UB libraries if they are trying to bill for lost or missing items.  This may mean that we will need to delegate bill collecting to the home library.  Cleo has indicated that the number of EC users who wish to restrict access to their personal information is increasing.

           

 

2. AV Formats & equipment – raised by Colleges

 

Outdated formats in the catalog can be a liability.  Patrons find items and order them without realizing that their home campus does not have the ability to view the item.  I suspect this will be a greater problem with universal borrowing than it is at present, because we will be eliminating the librarian as "middleman", who has an ability to intercept the request and advise the patron of the problem with the format.  Perhaps a survey of equipment available in our libraries to use media would be helpful.