[ List Archives Home ] [ Thread index for 2008 ]
[ Date index for 2008 ]
[ Author index for 2008 ]
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
We have used the batch check-in function and use Unique as our collection agency. All the info we need is retained on the customer's record so we have not had problems. In December we deleted several thousand items that were overdue before Dec. 2005 so the patron had been turned over to collection long before we deleted the item. The titles, checkout dates, etc. all stay on the bill in the patron record.
Marcia Lewis
Loveland Public Library
Loveland, Colorado
-----Original Message-----
From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org [
mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of Doug Yancey
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 5:14 PM
To: innopac at innopacusers dot org
Subject: [IUG] Batch check-in & collection agency functions - compatible?
We're exploring the possibility of using the batch check-in function
(#102457) to remove long-billed items from our system. Our current
understanding of this feature is that it allows items to be checked in
and subsequently deleted while retaining the fine/fee information in the
patron record necessary for managing outstanding debts.
We also use the Millennium collection agency function. Can anyone tell
me if these two things work well together? Put another way, does the
batch check-in/delete process leave enough information on the system to
accurately populate the reports that get sent out to our Collection
Agency (Unique)?
Thanks in advance,
Doug Yancey
Technical Services Manager
Salem Public Library
585 Liberty St SE
Salem, OR 97301
503.588.6020
dyancey at cityofsalem dot net
--
This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC list
Public replies: INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
Update your subscription options:
http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac
Home
Mailing list