Resource Sharing Minutes

September 25, 2003
Meeting Notes

ATTENDEES: Joe Nash, Dawn Geurds, Amy Maurer, Jean Marie Cole, Ethel LaPier, Amy B-A, Amy Williams, Debbie Canzano, Barbara Kendall, Mena Will, Rob Carle, Betty Albright, Geoffrey Kirkpatrick, Sue Dague, Jo-Ann Benedetti (notes).

NEW PATRON REGISTRATION CARDS: The new cards are in. Contact Rachel if you need a supply.

WHO KEEPS THE CARD?: The issue of which library keeps the signature card was discussed. Libraries all seem to be doing something different. The question came up as to why they need to be kept. Like the shelflist and card catalog, it might be time to consider discarding the paper card after the data is entered into UHLAN. There was agreement that there is not much use in keeping them, except for temporary cards, non-resident cards, and possibly youth cards to help in disputes about guardians. The group agreed to recommend to the ASC and Directors Association that the paper registration cards can be tossed at the library’s discretion.

UHLAN CARDS: We discussed under what circumstances libraries use UHLAN cards. Again, everyone seemed to do things differently. Some used UHLAN cards for out-of-system borrowers. Others used them for patrons who live in the system, but outside of the home library. A few smaller libraries use the UHLAN cards exclusively – only the barcode is a reflection of the patron’s home library. Some libraries underline the barcode in red for out-of-system patrons. All agreed that we need to talk about the possibility of no longer having UHLAN cards.

There is some inconsistency between the screens, where the words “home library” and “location” mean the same thing. Rob will check each library’s registration screens to be sure that they are uniform.

The group would like the Btype to be on the first CKO screen. Rob thinks this might be one of the enhancements of the upgrade to 7.3.

Line 4 needs to say “City, ST” and the line that currently says “City, ST” should read “City, ST code.” Rob will look into this to see if this change will have any implications for the system. For example, telecirc is dependent on the home library field.

Rawdon demonstrated the Borrower Registration Report, which gives monthly and total figures by county code. The group still wants the information broken out by Btype (adult, youth, etc). Rawdon will work with Dynix on this.

Rawdon reported that we are willing to pay for circulation reports based on collection codes, but Dynix is not sure it can produce them. For the State annual report, the figures will need to be by calendar and school year, depending on the library.

The Request Reorder Report and the Daily Circulation Activity Report are available via FTP. Circulation statistics by the hour can also be obtained via FTP. There will be numbers recorded even during the hours when the library is not open, because patrons can renew online themselves at any time.

Varying Renewals: Use of PC Reliance might have had an affect on renewals, which should be based on CKO location. Rob can look at the Itypes and locations to be sure that they are set correctly. Call him and he will come out to your library. Will PC Reliance ever be able to CKI? No.

Hold Notification: There are still problems with this, which Dynix is working on fixing.

Quality of Registration: In keeping with the activities of the Database Maintenance Advisory Council, an ad hoc subcommittee of the Resource Sharing Advisory Council will meet until the end of the 2003 to determine the elements needed from Dynix reports in anticipation of the State annual report. The subcommittee includes Geoff, Joe, Amy B-A, and Rob as ex-officio.

Current Upgrade: The upgrade is progressing as planned. Rawdon anticipates some downtime, but will warn system users beforehand. Following this meeting, there will be a chance for everyone to test the new version.

Large Pull List: The lengthy pull lists some libraries experienced this week may be due to students being back and school. Also, people are requesting larger and larger numbers of items from home. For the next meeting, we need to discuss whether there should be a standard maximum of requests per person. Videos are especially vulnerable. Should we limit by session? By format? What kind of wording should be displayed on the screen when the patron reaches his/her limit? What about book discussion groups, schools, and agencies like nursing homes.

1. There is no need to retain the paper patron registration cards. They can be discarded at the discretion of the library.
2. Please begin discussions of the continued need for UHLAN cards. Are they really necessary or do they just cause more confusion?

NEXT MEETING: Thursday, October 16, 2003 at 9:00 AM in the large meeting room at UHLS.