Summit Borrowing Steering Team

April 27, 2006

Teleconference

Members attending in person:

n/a

Members attending by phone or videoconference:

Mindy Muzatko (The Evergreen State College), Louise Newswanger (George Fox University), Jeremy McWilliams (Lewis & Clark College), Nancy Nathanson (Orbis Cascade Alliance), Cindy Cunningham (Oregon Health and Science University), Katherine Stevens (Portland Community College), Pam Mofjeld (University of Washington)

Members not present:

Tina Hovekamp (Central Oregon Community College)

Guests:

Susie Scroggins (Orbis Cascade Alliance), Michelle Williams (Orbis Cascade Alliance)

1. Summit Borrowing Day

The Steering Team members discussed the time and location of Summit Borrowing Day. After some checking of other potentially conflicting conference dates, the Team decided that the week of July 25-28 would probably work best. Susie will check the availability of WSU-Vancouver (and other Portland area members, if necessary) for hosting, after which Nancy will send a survey to SBC members to vote on specific dates. Katherine suggested a poll on the Summit Borrowing Day evaluation to determine whether members would be interested in having future sites other than the Portland area. The Team also concluded that a two-day format (same as last year, with Summit Borrowing Day on first day, and committee meeting on the second) would be favorable to condensing the event into a single day.

The Team members then discussed programming ideas, including (but not limited to) the following, with potential presenters noted where applicable:

·        Fulfillment rates

·        Dates closed table

·        Desk problem report

·        Front liners talking about problems

·        AAR

·        PUA/same site requesting-- Erin (PCC)

·        INN-REACH enhancement review

·        Review of communication protocols (daily/policy/etc. privacy issues)

·        How to use the blog

·        Dealing with requests for different cataloging structures

·        Statistics  (Pam & Nancy—how to get at local statistics)

·        Student training issues—Jan  (OIT)

·        Privacy issue—Cindy(OHSU)

2. Short Loan Rules

The Steering Team members discussed results of the short loan survey. It was noted that Mt. Hood Community College had very strong objections to any changes in the loan rule. Despite this, the Team members concluded that 77% of the respondents supported a minimum of a 3 day increase in the loan period by way of patron renewal.

The Steering Team supports the idea of a recommendation to council to add a 3-day renewal period to the short loan rule. Nancy will talk to John Helmer to determine the appropriate procedure for carrying out this recommendation.

3. Booking Module

The Steering Team continued the discussion about the III Booking Module, and its incompatibility with INN-Reach. It was decided that a “Best Practices” document might be appropriate for institutions developing a workflow with both the Booking Module and INN-Reach Borrowing.

Nancy will develop a first draft/template of a policy agreement, and the Steering Team members will fill in any blanks.

4. Timely Return of Materials

After some discussion, the Steering Team Members concluded that the problem might not be as widespread as previously thought. Forthcoming data from the recent transit survey could provide some insight on the courier’s affect upon returning materials in a timely fashion. The Team agreed that courtesy notices were generally an effective tool to improve timely return. Nancy offered to solicit courtesy notice text examples from member libraries, and post them on the staff web site.

5. “Re-checking out items”

The Team members discussed the INN-Reach ‘feature’ in which items with the status of ‘Summit Returned’ could be checked out to patrons again for an additional loan period. Nancy asked whether it would be necessary to develop a policy discouraging the use of this feature. While many agreed this idea in principle, some wondered whether such a policy could have the reverse effect by alerting staff members to the existence of this feature. The conclusion was to write something saying that while it is possible to accomplish this -- checking something out (again) after it's already been checked in -- that it is not to be used because it then breaks other agreements about the length of patron and institution loan periods and renewals.  The statement will be included in the How-To document, but not widely advertised.

 

Agenda

Minutes prepared by:  Jeremy McWilliams, 5/8/06

approved: May 15, 2006