All Subcommittee Comments Can Be Found At
Action Items
PINES Executive Committee
December 2009
All Subcommittee comments can be found at
AI1. Proposal to Allow Holds on All Audio-books and Videos within PINES
**See attached letter from patron**
The proposal is to allow holds to be placed on items such as audio-books and videos for PINES patrons with home libraries outside of the item owning library system.
Subcommittee Recommendation:
5 Yes
26 No
Subcommittee Comments:
“I have long believed that selective materials sharing is an antiquated and unfair part of the policy. If a patron can return any of our materials at any PINES library in the state, why can't they borrow them? In light of the economy and increased use and awareness of public libraries and their services, it is definitely the time, in my opinion, to allow borrowing of AV throughout the PINES network. Doesn't that speak to the heart of what PINES is supposed to be? I emphatically support this proposal. From a System that has a large AV holding, I can say without question that this is one of the biggest gripes patrons have from surrounding systems. I also think that the petitioner makes some very valid points.”
“In theory it is within the PINES philosophy; in practice we are not yet where we are confident of delivery within a reasonable time, or returned within a reasonable time. For limited collections, with limited circulations, we would have these items intransit for longer than they can circulate. -A good idea whose time has not yet come.”
“Concern: The number of audiobooks and dvds returned to our library with items missing is quite large. We have a hard enough time getting these missing items back from our own patrons – I can’t imagine what it would be like trying to get missing pieces back from patrons living miles and miles away.
Another concern is the increased wear and tear that would occur with items moving all over the state constantly. Audio and video items already have a much shorter shelf life than print, and I think we would see them going into retirement on a much shorter cycle if we let them circulate statewide.”
“I understand that one of the main reasons that libraries do not want to have holds placed on cds, cassettes, videos, and dvds is because of the problem of the delivery between libraries. But our library already has to ship these materials through the state courier service, because of the proximity of other regional systems to us. For years, we have shipped cds, cassettes, and dvds especially to FRRLS and SHRL libraries as well as others that border our region. We have had no reports of damage of these materials.
If we tell the patrons they can return any item at any PINES library, why not let them borrow these same items through our holds process?”
“Until other libraries in Georgia have devoted the same amount of funding and management that we have given to develop our audio-visual collection I am thoroughly against this proposal. Yes, a consortium does share it's resources, but not to the benefit of a few and the detriment of several. There are plenty of other library directors who have blatently told me that they cannot order the number of DVD's/audio books and the depth of collection that we have here at Newton County. They have told me that they look forward to the day when their patrons and they can place holds on titles in the collection here in Covington.
The DVD and audio book collection at Newton County Library is quite high. I am thoroughly against having my high circulators taken out of this library for several, several weeks to circulate elsewhere and I do not get any circulation credit for the items begin taken away from my patrons.
Additionally, the audio books and DVS's that are checked out by patrons and returned to neighboring systems have a much higher rate of damage and missing items than books. We are constantly calling the other library systems to see if the patron returned CD #4 out of a set of 10. Shipping books across the state, that are only one item, is one thing. But to ship a multi part audio visual item will cause my PINES clerk increasing time and effort to track down missing and damaged items.
Give me circulation credit for the titles that are sent to other PINES library to fulfill holds, require all public libraries to collect DVD's and audio books in their collections, and give me a realisic insurance program where I can get funds to replace broken and replaced items and I will become more favorible toward this request.”
AI2. Proposal to Allow Renewal of a PINES Patron Card Only if all Fines are Paid
**See attached letters from library board members and parent organizations**
Proposal: PINES policy states that a person should be issued a card free of charge, good for two years, and that the person may use the card as long as they owe less than $10 in fines.A library director has requested a revision on this policy in that a person must clear up all fines before renewing his or her card. This would mean that PINES patrons can carry a $9.99 fine for up to two years, but patrons must pay all fines in order to renew their card.
Subcommittee Recommendation:
18 Yes
7 No
4 Other
Some Subcommittee Comments:
“I have no problem with this. I know of several patrons who always leave the maximum fine on their cards that's possible and still use them. If they go over that, they just pay it down to the maximum. It's not a terrible thing to expect people to pay off their card when they want it renewed.”
“A patron doesn't know that his card has expired until he is ready to checkout a stack of books. I can only imagine how many grumpy patrons we will have when we say "sorry, you can't checkout these books because you have $1.20 in overdue fines and your card has expired." Many people, especially children, don't carry cash, check or credit cards with them all the time. Until PINES can notify patrons ahead of time that their card is about to expire and patrons can have access to card expiration information from "My Account", this will be a public relations nightmare. My vote is no.”
“…I know that several libraries have made the enhancement request to show the outstanding bills balance at the bottom of the check out receipt. If this passes, maybe we could add "your card expires on YYYY-MM-DD". Or have that pop up as an alert 30 days before expiration. That would help us to communicate with our regular patrons.”
“I had to vote “other.” We do need to make sure patrons receive a fair warning. Maybe Evergreen could generate notifications that would automatically be emailed a week or so in advance. This could warn patrons that they have a balance due and their card is about to expire. In addition, maybe an alert could appear while they are in their “My Account.”
AI3. PINES Bags Purchased by Borrowing System Ratio
**See attached suggested document “Bags to Buy Ratio”**
Proposal by director: find an equitable formula for the purchase of PINES bags where each system pays a little. Rather than asking libraries to volunteer to purchase bags for the whole State, the State would asklibraries to pay based on the amount of Intra-PINES holds received.
PINES libraries purchase, on an annual basis, transit bags to keep up with
the increasing demand of total PINES transits statewide. As the total
number of holds statewide increases each year, each system would be strongly
encouraged to purchase an additional number of bags based on the ratio of
holds received. Bag purchases are therefore based on an equitable and fair
distribution according to the burden each system places on the PINES system’
s holds as a whole.
Other Considerations:
The ratio would be revisited and determined each year by the EC, even as to
whether it is needed. (e.g., one bag for every 500, 1000, 2000 holds.)
No system is penalized if they are a net lender, as all are borrowers.
Borrowing determines purchases, not lending.
A minimum of one bag per year would be required by every system. This is
not an undue burden for any. Small systems who can afford this less would
have to make less of a contribution. Large systems who borrow more are then
“paying in bags” for the convenience of not having to make these book
purchases themselves.
Putting more bags into the system annually means that more holds arrive
quicker to their destinations. Multiplying the time lag for PINES transits
statewide on a annual basis means more materials are available when and
where they’re supposed to be.
PINES libraries are, in a sense, taking care of their own as a whole, and
not expecting others to do so.
Subcommittee Recommendation:
10 Yes
7 No
Subcommittee Comments:
“This sounds very fair, but I worry that the net borrowers aren't going to have the funds to purchase the bags.As net lenders, we have to purchase paper mailers and scrounge for materials. We've also contributed to the bag purchases in the past, because we could manage and it seemed like a better long-term solution than the paper mailers.”
“I'm against this because it penalizes net borrowers. I understand the logic, and on the surface it makes sense. But a lot of the items we are borrowing are unnecessary because we already OWN the item...and very often it is returned before the same title arrives from another library. Whenever is the holds system going to be fixed so that there is a waiting period before the hold rolls out system-wide??? Until then, I don't think we should recommend a specific ratio.”
“I support this, even though my library system is one of the big net borrowers. PINES isn’t free. As costs occur, we must find ways to cover them. We know this, but occasionally, we must remind our local funding sources…”
“…Each library should look at the number of holds they are receiving and send the excess number of bags along to other libraries needing bags.”
AI4. Claims Returned Policy Review
Proposal: PINES needs a formal policy on Claims Returned.
The currently policy is excessively vague and reads:
Claims Returned - If a user claims to have returned materials that PINES still shows as checked out, the material may be marked with a Claims Returned date. Overdue fines stop accruing as of the date entered in the Claims Returned field. A user may have up to 5 Claims Returned items on his record at any time.
PINES really needs to state, first, more precisely, what a Claims Returned is and second, in what situations Claims Returned can be used. Currently it is up to individual library systems or in some cases just left up to frontline staff to interpret when to use Claims Returned.
Things to consider:
Are patrons liable for Claims Returned items?
Can any staff use Claims Returned on any item?
Should libraries that chose to use Claims Returns have a written policy governing its usage?
Should libraries have a written policy indicating Calims Returned is not permitted at their library?
If the definition and implementation of Claims Returned is left up to the individual library systems, how do we insure fairness? What is to stop a library system to using Claims Return for their patrons and demanding a lost book payment on intra-PINES loans?
Should we suggest a process for patrons who claim they returned an intra-PINES loan?
Subcommittee Recommendation:
9 Yes
4 No
Subcommittee Comments:
“I voted no because I find local policy works better, esp. when unique situations arise. First of all, we NEVER mark a claims returned on something that belongs to another library - unless we call the owning library and gain permission. As far as items we own, I like having the freedom to handle it locally. I think if PINES gets too invovled on the local level, it takes the control away and hurts patrons in the long run. Believe me, we still get grief when PINES policy made it mandatory to produce a library card at checkout. A decision we abide by, but I still believe it to be wrong.“
“What I find to be interesting is that despite being member libraries of a consortium we, the collective we, want to do so many things on the local level which only adds to the headaches of individuals who travel to other System libraries. I'm always up for a strict policy as it also helps those of us locally to say, 'we're a part of a consortium and have to look out for the needs of all its participants.' To be quite honest often times we grow weary or are unclear of what the policies are since they are not upheld by everyone. Sigh.”
“It is always easier to explain a process that involves topics like overdues, lost book charges, and liability for library materials if it has written policy to back it up. If we can’t have a PINES-wide policy, it would be nice to ask library systems, if they use claims returned, that they have a written claims returned policy.
For consistency, PINES-wide would be good. To start the discussion, I will suggest the following:
On liability, I would answer, no. If claims returned is used, it has been decided that the patron will not be held liable for the item.
On who and which items, I would recommend that library systems could only use claims return if they are the owning library of the item.
On a claims returned process on intra-PINES loans, I would recommend keeping it simple and a statement like, “To place an item in claims returned, the owning library of the item must be contacted.”
Currently if the staff's library system doesn't have a written claims returned policy, the staff is pretty free to apply claims returned as they see fit.”
“The Claims Returned function came with little direction or understanding and accordingly it has been misused throughout the PINES system. As with all other aspects of PINES governance, the documentation and implementation of Claims Returned should be a portion of PINES Polices & Procedures. It should be implemented throughout the PINES system in exactly the same way from library system to library system. The checkout and check-in of library materials is consistent in the PINES system from library to library. This is another form of check-in, though without the material in hand, and should be treated as such.
The appropriate subcommittee should draw up a suitable Policy and Procedures for discussion and review.”
AI5. New Library Policy Name - ARL-CAR for Carnesville Resource Center located in Carnesville.
December 2009Page 1