text: October 6, 2021, 10 am
  The IC approved the recommendation from CSS to change RTH settings from 120 days back to 60 days.
  The IC approved the recommendation from CSS to increase enrollment period of LU and LUJ patron categories to 12 months.
  The IC approved the recommendation from CSS to change to ILS Policy/Procedure "Items missing from Library Hold Shelf".
  Present: Erin Foley, ACL (1), Debbie Bird, POR (2), Suzann Holland, MRO (3), Eddie Glade, PCPL (4), Lauren White (PDS), Eric Norton, MCM (6), Heidi Cox, MCF (7), Phil Hansen FCH (8), Nate Snortum, DCL (9, 10), Margie Navarre Saaf, Molly Warren, Susan Lee, MAD (11 -13)
  SCLS Staff Present: Vicki Teal Lovely, Martha Van Pelt, Amy Gannaway, Heidi Oliversen
  i. V. Teal Lovely added "Customer services issues" as 6d (Under discussion).
  2. Approval of previous meeting minutes: August 4, 2021
  a. Motion: M. Warren moved approval of the August meeting minutes. E. Norton seconded.
  a. CSS motion to change RTH settings from 120 days back to 60 days (from August 10, 2021 meeting)
  ii. Discussion: Delivery has gone back to normal since before the pandemic and are no longer quarantining materials. The change to the RTH settings helped keep more materials in the checkin library to fill holds when delivery was reduced due to the pandemic. ACL feels that their new materials leave their library and don't come back as their patrons don't place holds. We had a workgroup look into this a few years ago and they spent about a year evaluating the options. The decision at the time was to continue to loan new materials based on the holds queue, and not keep new materials in the owning library. MCM is not sure this is a small vs. large library problem. They are a medium size library and they notice this too. This could be discussed at CSS but this is a larger issue (philosophy of holds resource sharing). We currently have two special workgroups (Multi-part DVDs and Delivery Workflows) and it would be difficult to add another one right now. We will table this discussion for now. There is still a bug in production software that prevents RTH from working as intended. There is a fix for it in the sandbox, which has been tested and it is working. We are still trying to get the 7.0 upgrade put into production as soon as possible. We are aware that making the change now may not have a real impact since RTH is not working properly, but libraries may notice that RTH is not working well when the change is made. H. Oliversen will send an email explaining the RTH bug in production and explain that we are making this change to the RTH settings so libraries are aware of it.
  b. CSS motion to increase enrollment period of LU and LUJ patron categories to 12 months.
  ii. Discussion: This request originally came from MAD staff. They already have a 12 month expiration for web only cards and thought consistency with other expiration dates would be useful. It will also save staff time because they will only be renewing cards once a year. Libraries can manually set the expiration date but thought they would ask if other libraries were interested in extending this period for these patron categories. CSS sent out a survey asking all libraries for input: of the libraries that responded, 22 approved the change to 12 months; 9 had no opinion on this issue; and 2 were against making this change, but one changed their mind after more discussion. Libraries will still be able to set dates manually. STP does 3 months expiration dates but this doesn't happen that often so they are fine with changing it manually.
  c. CSS recommendation for change to ILS Policy/Procedure "Items missing from Library Hold Shelf".
  ii. Discussion: M. Navarre Saaf reviewed the motion. If an item on the hold shelf goes missing, the current procedure is that the library should check the item out to their hold shelf missing card for 5 months. If it still hasn't turned up in that time, at 6 months the item will go to lost and the owning library should be reimbursed for their item. If the lost item does get returned, libraries have previously had a gentleman's agreement (no official policy) to give that library a refund. However, more libraries are no longer issuing refunds to patrons and this policy has also extended to payments for Lost items from other libraries. The recommendation is to change the procedure for items missing from hold shelves: the library with the missing items will check out that item to their Hold Shelf (missing) card for a period of 11 months. If the item is checked in anywhere during this period, the items will be removed from that account. After 11 months the item will become overdue and will convert to Lost after 29 days. Once the item becomes Lost, the library can pay the owning library for the (still) missing item. Paying Libraries would not expect a refund for an item returned after 12 months.
  i. V. Teal Lovely reviewed the October 2021 ILS Report.
  i. M. Navarre Saaf reviewed the August and September minutes.
  i. A. Gannaway reviewed the September minutes.
  i. V. Teal Lovely reviewed the discussion at the September 30 meeting. We had a brainstorming session in March. We also did a "temperature check" on the issue with a quick survey and the survey results were split. The group meetings were postponed because of the MFD/RIO migrations and summer. On September 30, we talked mostly about the process. How do we make this decision? The ramifications will be different for libraries and we will try to work on the larger issues as a group. There is no easy answer. We would like a consensus instead of having to go to a weighted vote. We're forming a steering group to talk about the actual process so the workgroup can talk about the actual issues. We will look at the process we used when we reviewed the Cost Formula and the ILS vendors. There is no urgency to making this decision. It was more urgent last spring because RIO and MFD were going to join, but now they've joined.
  i. V. Teal Lovely reviewed the discussion at the September 23 meeting.
  a. MNT mentioned they are having more intermittent lag times in Bibliovation to their cluster representative. H. Oliversen will reach out to MNT to get more info.
  a. Bibliovation Development Survey (following 7.0 upgrade)
  i. Discussion: A. Gannaway reviewed the process. Previously, the subcommittees looked over bugs and prioritized fixes for each module. Then the ILS Committee finalize the priorities for all modules with input from clusters (the IC came up with a first Top 5 and a second Top 5 list of priority bugs for LibLime). We plan to start a discussion at the Fall User Groups and have those groups look over the current bug list and rank the fixes in order of importance. Then this information will go back to subcommittees in January, who will incorporate feedback from the User Groups and come up with a priority list for each module. Then at the February IC meeting, the IC can again come up with a "top 5" priority list for all modules (with input from clusters). This will also be a good time to discuss future development.
  b. 2022 Technology Plan: ILS section
  i. Assessment of Marketplace Discussion from August meeting
  1. Discussion: V. Teal Lovely reviewed the response to the marketplace discussion handout she sent out to the group this morning. This is where we decide what projects to work on and what should wait. V. Teal Lovely reviewed what has made it to the list for 2022 projects draft. V. Teal Lovely reviewed the 2022 Technology Plan proposal. We will be voting on this at the December meeting.
  c. Process for Requests for New Services
  i. Discussion: V. Teal Lovely reviewed the handout she sent out this morning to the group. We reviewed the request for new Technology services at the last meeting. 2022 is very full of services to investigate and we're also continuing the Delivery Workflow Workgroup and Multi-part DVDs Packaging Workgroup. As new things come in, we need a better vetting process. Multiple libraries should be included on projects and we should be focusing on what we've already committed too. We could explore keeping new materials in the library, but we are not sure we would have time for this project in 2022. We would like the IC to work together to set the priorities, however, resources are limited. We can make adjustments to this request to fit the ILS services. Please review and bring to your clusters, and then bring feedback to the December meeting.
  d. Customer service issues.
  i. Discussion: Libraries reported that communication was lacking during recent downtimes (i.e. came up at CSS, library visits, other meetings, etc.). The ILS and Technology/Help Desk Teams are working on improving communication moving forward. Our relationship with libraries is the most important component of our services. We have reviewed suggestions and the following will be our process during urgent service outages: We will send an email to the appropriate list when a problem is confirmed. Until a problem is resolved, we will update the status wiki three times a day (morning, noon, before close of day). We will send and an email when the problem is fixed (i.e. an all clear message) and, if possible, will provide an explanation for the problem. The group was fine with the changes to the email/status wiki updates plan. We've already been trying to follow this plan. Another request was to avoid use of jargon and we could use feedback from libraries on this. We are still reviewing all of the requests/concerns. There will be more discussion about this in the future. We want to do better and be as helpful as possible.