Re: due dates
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:49:48 -0500
- From: "Amy Frazer" <afrazer@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: due dates
I was glad to read your missive. We have the same problem. We have a
bookmobile which checks out for four weeks and we in the branches check out
for three weeks. It does not usually cause a problem for us as usually we
do not point this out to patrons and they end up with extra time they don't
know they have. We do have a slight problem with renewals cuz the differnet
dates do create confusion. The real problem is that the bookmobile does not
charge overdue fines and the branches do. If a bookmobile patron comes to a
branch, checks out branch material and keeps it overdue, he does not pay a
fine when he returns the items. Fortunately this does not occur often. It
did not used to be this way on Geac and I don't remember this problem when
we first went with III - just lately. I wonder if they changed or it has
always been this way.
Amy Frazer, Information Services
Rockingham County Public Library
Eden North Carolina
From: McClellan Jr., Michael C. <MMcClellan@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'innopac@xxxxxxxxxx' <innopac@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Reierson, Deborah J. <DJReierson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, November 27, 2000 9:04 PM
Subject: due dates
>Staff at one of our branches has raised an issue regarding the fact that
>of the criteria Innopac uses when setting the due date is the owning
>and not the library where the transaction took place. I realize this is an
>oversimplification in that ptype and other factors are involved, but for us
>these are all basically equal with the one major exception being days open
>of our various agencies. Some are open Saturday and closed Friday, others
>are exactly opposite. Then there are the libraries that are open Monday
>through Saturday. Normally this is not a big deal as most patrons check
>material at their local library and thus the due dates are the same.
>However we are very active with requests and holds and thus quite a few
>transactions take place at a different agency then the one that owns the
>item. So we get situations where patrons get due different due dates when
>checking out a stack of items that includes some requested from other
>agencies with different closed days. Apparently also (if you read the
>following message that prompted this) if you renew material you can end up
>with items being due on dates the library is actually closed as the due
>was calculated based on the owning location and not where the transaction
>So if you read all of the above you might be wondering what my question
>actually is. Well what I'm wondering is what is the basic logic behind
>basing the due date on who owns the item instead of where the item is
>checked out. Our former Geac system was based on where the transaction
>place. And does this cause much confusion?
>Circulation Department Supervisor
>Minneapolis Public Library
>300 Nicollet Mall
>Minneapolis, MN 55401
>From: Reierson, Deborah J.
>Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 7:09 PM
>To: McClellan Jr., Michael C.
>Subject: Overdue fines for Fridays - the continuing saga
>Mike - Again, the issue of fines for books that are checked out at PB. The
>fines should be assessed for the library where the book is checked out or
>returned. It was this way under Geac and it seems to have changed with
>When the fines and due dates are not tied to the library where the activity
>takes place peculiar things happen.
>Example: I had 5 items on my account and three of them were renewed on
>Thursday, Nov.2. 2 were PB books and 1 was from Hosmer but checked out at
>PB. When I renewed them, 2 (PB) became due Nov. 25 and 1 (HO) on Nov. 24.
>So - the book was checked out here but is now due on a day we're not even
>open. If I or a patron check out books from this library we should be able
>to return them here on the day they're due without a fine. Also, If people
>return MELSA books here they would get a better deal because we back date
>them to the last day WE were open.
>Also, as I mentioned, items that are returned on Saturday will accrue 2
>fines if the items are owned by another agency.
>This just doesn't feel right.
>This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC
>Private replies: "McClellan Jr., Michael C." <MMcClellan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Public replies: INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list.
Private replies: "Amy Frazer" <afrazer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Public replies: INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx