Summary of Executive Committee Discussion re: 50-Item Limit
November/December 2002
Alan Kaye, 11/13 3:00 p.m.: What is everyone's perception on whether the software limit of 50 items per PINES card should be the standard everywhere, or whether systems can set different limits locally (in this case lower limits)?
The question has been raised in a significant manner between a PINES system
that observes the limit of 50 and another that has set lower local limits.
When someone goes across the county line and into the system that is not
their home system, they encounter this lower limit and have made inquiry to
their home library, which observes the 50-item limit, about whether they
should be entitled to 50 items from the other library.
The circulation policy manual does not have guidance on the matter, simply
saying that one PINES card can have up to 50 items charged on it. I think
we need to provide the guidance at our next meeting.
Susan Cooley, 11/13 3:24 p.m. I agree. We had a problem several months ago with this same vagueness in the policy. I can't remember the exact situation but I think the person had 50 and wanted more. Since it said "in most cases, a maximum of 50 items may be charged simultaneously" it did not give us much comfort. What does "mostcases" mean? What other cases are there? We did print it off and show it to the patron and it worked but I would rather have something firmer. I know that this is not exactly what you are talking about...
Alan Kaye, 11/13 4:05 pm - Susan, it could be that "most cases" got in there because some people on the Executive Committee wanted higher limits than 50. I remember hearing 100 suggested at least one time.
It has occurred to me that the capability for override might eventually
create a problem on the high side, although mostly it solves problems
locally for classroom deposit collections and such as that. I have been
known to comment that I would not mention any kind of override capability to
an individual who simply wanted to press the limit. Yet, I might do an
override without even mentioning it, if someone was really getting some work
done and didn't know exactly where they stood with the limit.
Anyway, there could be difficulty with limits in some places by local
policy, local practice, or default eventually being higher than 50.
The current issue that needs a decision is whether libraries can set limits
lower than 50 locally--or, to put it another way, can set limits lower than
50 for all of the patrons from anywhere in PINES wanting to check out
materials from their library system.
I think PINES could operate equally well whether lower local limits are
allowed or not, so I'm not trying to color my description of the question.
To be honest, I cannot recall anything that's been said against setting
limits lower locally, but I could be forgetting some of the discussion that
caused the setting of 50. I think we had to just agree on one number that
the SOFTWARE would observe as a limit, so we would not complicate the
operation of the software with more than one AUTOMATIC policy, but I have
not been 100% certain that it meant we all had to go with 50.
Let's be thinking about it.
David Singleton, 11/13 6:26 p.m. My understanding is that 50 was intended as the upper limit for all PINES libraries, as a matter of policy, but that this could be overridden if someone needed more and the library could accommodate that locally. I believe that the "in most cases" refers to the fact that some patron types (RESTRICTED is a good example) are limited to a different number of items. RESTRICTED is limited to 2 items checked out simultaneously. OUTREACH, on the other hand, can have an unlimited number of items checked out simultaneously. Those are the only two that I can think of that have limits other than 50.
Alan 11/14 12:06 p.m. From: "Singleton, David"
My understanding is that 50 was intended as the upper limit for all PINES
libraries, as a matter of policy...
It's that "matter of policy" that lies at the heart of this question.
Certainly there needed to be just one "automatic limit" setting for the
software all across PINES. If I'm not mistaken, Sirsi required just one
such setting, and multiple software settings were not possible.
Certainly in the PINES circulation policies we see this:
"In most cases, a maximum of 50 items may be charged simultaneously on a
PINES card."
David has described some good examples to show us where "most cases"
probably did come from. There are limits on special formats, and
subject-specific limits are allowed--no problem there.
Now, the question is, would it hurt anything for systems to have local
limits that are lower than 50, even though a person with eclectic borrowing
habits might traverse the state and get a total of 50 books from various
places. We are talking about books that are available, not subject to some
other restriction.
If a PINES library system director were to say that her system would impose
a local limit and keep it in place unless PINES made a reasonable effort, in
a timely manner, STATEWIDE [my emphasis--see earlier notes on collection
agencies] to collect on outstanding obligations, that might color the issue
to a great extent and cause our decision making to go all one way, but I
hope we can separate ourselves from that and just make a decision based on
what we think would work in most situations.
Susan Cooley, 11/14 1:08 p.m. I thought that for the most part being in a consortia meant that we agree to all the terms of the membership. Now I know that sometimes we must all veer from the policies (using photo IDs instead of cards when necessary or sending AV materials out to other PINES libraries) but for the most part the rules are the rules. In this case or any others like it dealing with numbers of materials for checkout, I think we need to stick to the limit. Otherwise we will all have trouble when certain individuals come into our libraries and try to abuse the policy. I just assumed (as I think others have) that we could not set smaller arbitrary limits even for our local patrons. Anyway...
Barbara Hutsell 11/18 3:01 p.m. Julie,
I feel that the discussion of the "limit of number of items charged" issue currently taking place (re:circulation and D9 listservs) needs to be clarified. It seems that two separate and distinct questions are being addressed 1) Whether the number of items charged limit should be changed from 50? OR 2) Whether the overall PINES limit should remain 50 allowing individual libraries to set a limit lower than fifty at their own discretion and applicable to their own situation.
It is my understanding that the second of these options is the current PINES policy as it was approved by the Executive committee.
I personally feel that local option is always preferable to one-size-fits-all policy. I haven't seen anyone yet explain why we cannot simply say to a library user, "Yes, across the county line they allow you to check out fifty items and here we allow you to check out twenty-five."
An assumption seems to be afoot that PINES libraries must be much more uniform in practice than I understood as the original concept. Thoughts?
Barbara Hutsell, 11/18/ 3:39 p.m. I don't think it would be a change to allow individual libraries to set a lower limit than fifty -- my understanding is that that is the case, currently.
I agree with Debbie that an angry patron here and there should not be reason
to change the policy. I also agree that each library should have local
policies in writing.
Alan 11/18 3:40 p.m. Thanks for giving your perception of issue #2, Barbara. I was beginning to think I was the only person who thought the policy would allow for that.
At this point I can see pros and cons on both sides, so I'm not committed to
one or the other. We just need to make some decisions that will prevent
border skirmishes.
Diana Tope 11/18 3:51 p.m. Policy (Section 1, page 11,) says that "in most cases, a maximum of 50 items may be charged simultaneously on a PINES card." I interpret that to mean 50 items may be on the card at the same time, regardless of the library where the items were checked out. The exceptions would be those listed under the Appendix 1 User Profiles (dated Nov. 27, 2001) where, for example, a restricted user may have only 2 items at the same time.
Many libraries where I have worked in the past had provisions for limiting
the number of books in a particular subject area if the collection had only
a few titles in that area, but that wouldn't change the total number of
items that could be checked out on a card.
Of course, in the last example Barbara cites, the 25-limit library could
check out 25 to the patron, who could then go next door and get another 25
under their 50-limit arrangement.
If the members want to change the limits, or allow individual libraries to
set lower limits, I think the appropriate PINES subcommittee should study it
and make a recommendation.
Debbie Manget 11/18 3:54 p.m. Barbara and all (D9),
I agree with Barbara. EVERY library IS different. Our collections are
very different in size. After 100 years of different policies to fit
different libraries and communities, why should we expect to make them all
the same? ESPECIALLY within a 2 or 3 year period! I hope that we (and
whomever the D9 group becomes) will always look at allowing the local
library system to decide a policy, IF the technology will allow, at least
as a starting point. If it creates problems for MANY (and I don't mean an
angry patron here and there, which we will always have), THEN we conform to
one policy.
If the technology can have only one limit, then THAT is what the PINES
manual would state. Then we could state that local libraries may have
different limits. Some libraries may choose to override the limit and
allow more, some may set lower limits, but must monitor it manually (or
however they can figure.) I think every library should have it own
policies in writing for their patrons (whether they are PINES or local).
We can make PINES libraries aware that this is a local policy, not a PINES
policy. I bet most libraries would choose 50 for 'normal' patrons. :)
My 2 cents.
Susan Cooley, 11/19 6:26 a.m. Then why do we have PINES policies in the first place or better yet why
don't we all just pretend that we have individual SIRSI systems with no
agreement in the first place. So that could mean that since we had a 3 week
checkout with our other automated system and we didn't want to change to two
weeks we could have said that at OUR library we check out for 3 weeks and
changed the date for every patron that checked out. Where does it end?
Either we change the limit for all or keep the one we have now. When we
signed the PINES paperwork, we agreed to follow these policies to the best
of our ability so that there would be uniformity in the system. My two
cents.
Julie Walker 11/19 8:25 a.m. Executive Committee members,
The PINES subcommittees are currently considerin the question of local
limits on number of items charged, in order to forward a recommendation
to you in December. They are considering whether an individual PINES
library may impose a limit lower than the 50 specified in PINES policy.
We all acknowledge that many libraries limit by format, such as video,
or by subject collection, such as dinosaurs. We are now considering an
overall limit.
The subcommittee sentiment is running strongly toward strict adherence
to the 50-item limit. Many members have cited the needs of teachers and
homeschool parents in their reasoning. I want to share one message from
a thoughtful subcommittee member, which has sparked much agreement among
our colleagues.
Thanks for your help with this.
Julie
Everyone,
Oh joy, a philosophical question that cuts to the very core of our
professional beliefs and values Should we restrict the free use of
knowledge and information.
Well, we all restrict in some cases and situations -- we have reference
collections that can't be checked out, we aren't open every single hour
of the day, very young children can't get library cards, etc. But, once
a person has a card and the library is open for business should we be
limiting their use of the freely circulating library collection. The
populist egalitarian professional within me says no. We should be
allowing free and unfettered use of the library collection.
So the question is: Why would anyone want to restrict what library
users can check out? Why can't a person checkout every dinosaur book?
Items are available at a public library to be used. Not to sit on the
shelves gathering dust. I would rather see an item checked out then sit
on the shelf in the hopes that another user will come along and want to
check it out.
When I first came to my present position our region was limiting the
number of items an individual could check out in various collections and
formats. Public Services staff had to remember each of those
restrictions and while there were signs to remind users of the
limitations staff still had to apply those restrictions at the
Circulation Desk. Always a public relations problem. So, in diplomatic
fashion, I removed all of those restrictions. And for the last twelve