RE: due dates

[Kriss Ostrom <kriss@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yikes!   Could you give us some examples of specific changes that you saw??

Kriss
=================================================
Kriss Ostrom, Department Head, Circulation & Information Services
Main Library, Michigan State University, 100 Library
East Lansing, MI 48824-1048
=================================================
kriss@xxxxxxxxxx    517/355-8429     fax  517/355-5005
=================================================
-- Blessed are the flexible, for they shall not be bent out of shape! --

> ----------
> From: 	Said Shafik[SMTP:sshafik@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Reply To: 	innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 	Tuesday, November 28, 2000 10:53 AM
> To: 	innopac@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 	Re: due dates
> 
> One of the issues we noticed when we upgraded to C, then D that some of
> the
> Table and Loan Rules had been changed. Our Circulation manager, Dick
> Hanrath, and I spent about 5 hours going over all the Table and Loan rules
> one by one, so you might need to do the same. Good luck.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Said Shafik
> Technology Services Department
> Arlington Heights Memorial Library
> 500 N. Dunton Avenue
> Arlington Heights, IL 60004 USA
> Phone:
> Office:(847)506-2652 Home:(847)806-6679
> Fax:(847)506-2650
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Amy Frazer" <afrazer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <innopac@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:49 AM
> 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
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 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
> > one
> > >of the criteria Innopac uses when setting the due date is the owning
> > library
> > >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
> > out
> > >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
> > date
> > >was calculated based on the owning location and not where the
> transaction
> > >took place
> > >
> > >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
> > took
> > >place.   And does this cause much confusion?
> > >
> > >
> > >Michael McClellan
> > >Circulation Department Supervisor
> > >Minneapolis Public Library
> > >300 Nicollet Mall
> > >Minneapolis, MN  55401
> > >612-630-6042
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >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
> > III.
> > >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
> > days
> > >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
> > list.
> > >Private replies:  "McClellan Jr., Michael C."
> <MMcClellan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Public replies:   INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >Archives:  http://innopacusers.org/list/archives/
> >
> > --
> > This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC
> list.
> > Private replies:  "Amy Frazer" <afrazer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Public replies:   INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Archives:  http://innopacusers.org/list/archives/
> >
> 
> --
> This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC
> list.
> Private replies:  "Said Shafik" <sshafik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Public replies:   INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
> Archives:  http://innopacusers.org/list/archives/
> 
--
This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list.
Private replies:  Kriss Ostrom <kriss@xxxxxxxxxx>
Public replies:   INNOPAC@xxxxxxxxxx
Archives:  http://innopacusers.org/list/archives/