Draft Resource Sharing Policy Available for Member Comment

The definition states that an account/library card for the partron includes the patron's name and address.  Does this mean that all cards will have to have the patron's information?  What about key tags?  Will this eliminate on-the-fly records that don't have complete information?

A 2a  this is fine with us, what is done now

A 2b  this is fine with us, what is done now

3  We agree that libraries should NOT BILL other RAILS libraries for lost or damaged materials. This is the responsibility of the library which checked out the material. 

3a --   yes

3b -- assist how?  a library shouldn't be obligated to anything other than verifying information we might have on the patron -- such as new address etc.  We do not think it is right to use a library's collection agency or any other similar way to assist another library --- should not be mandated. 

3c --  same as comment in 3b

3d --  this is not a good idea.  It is a privacy issue first and foremost for patrons. For a patron to have a "record" which may or may not be up to date is a problem for patron privacy. This is why the NSLS stopped the delinquent list many many years ago -- there was a legal opinion behind this decision at that time.   On the practical side --- how will you know to remove a block, who's going to verify you should remove a block,  not all libraries will be as thorough hence the great potential for inaccurate records, as well as  this is a major burden on staff time to do this properly.

3e - this is fine and what is done now

Each of these sections refers to "registered patrons" which is not one of the terms defined in the definitions and we are unclear about its meaning.  I am taking it to mean anyone registered in any library's database regardless of their resident or reciprocal status.  This would mean the library where the charge is accrued is responsible for "assisting" in retrieving it.  Others who have read this have interpreted it as the borrower's HOME library is responsible for "assisting" (if that is the meaning, it raises many other questions).  Consistent terminology should be used throughout and/or all terms that significantly impact how a section can be interpreted should be defined.

"...a loan limitation no more restrictive than three items per reciprocal borrower's account per visit..." 

Is "per visit" really the intent here?  I would think the restriction should apply to the number of items on a borrower's account at any given time.  Otherwise, a borrower could take out three each day (or in multiple visits per day) to reach a very high number of total items out at a given time.  That would defeat the purpose of the restriction in the first place.

While resource sharing should be supported, I believe a public library's primary mission is to its taxpayers and reasonable limits should be able to be placed on the number of materials available to reciprocal borrowers.  This policy addresses specific situations where limits may be imposed, but--in my opinion--does so in a confusing way that will be difficult for library users to understand and does not effectively solve the problem.

Section III. A. 2. a. indicates certain categories can be limited (e.g. audiovisual materials), and those limits should extend to all reciprocal borrowers.  Section III. A. 2. b. indicates any OVERALL limit can only be applied to specific "libraries who have created a significant imbalance for the lending library," which is defined in the definitions at more than 15% of the library's total annual circulation in any given year.  So, this means that two reciprocal borrowers could come into my library and have different sets of loan limits available to them depending on their home library.  One could borrow an unlimited number of books, but only a limited number of DVDs, while the other might only be able to take out 3 total items.  

While I imagine this provision is to address a situation of a small library being located adjacent to a large one, it really is quite impractical to do this on a library by library basis.  Also, the inclusion of "any given year" implies this should be calculated annually, which means the list of "restricted" libraries could change each year, which is confusing to the public and staff.  Furthermore, I anticipate it WOULD change each year because imposing the restriction on a library would likely drop the circulation imbalance to under the 15% threshold, which would then mean the restriction would have to be lifted, possibly leading to the imbalance exceeding the 15% threshold the next year with the restriction then being reapplied, and so on. 

For a library funded primarily by local funds, what is important is the OVERALL impact of reciprocal lending, not the impact of one specific library versus another.  Imagine a library that is frequented by reciprocal borrowers from 10 other libraries, each of which make up 5 percent of the overall circulation for the library.  By these guidelines, none of those borrowers could be restricted because none make up 15 percent individually, but the OVERALL impact is huge.

While the provision for limiting users from specific libraries may need to remain part of these guidelines to address certain situations, I believe it is also necessary to allow libraries to impose reasonable limits on all reciprocal borrowers for the reasons outlined above.  These limits could certainly be less restrictive than 3 items.

Given these guidelines, we would be required to block a resident's card any time another library asked us to for any situation involving lost or damaged material.  While I do not mind blocking one of our residents cards for lost material at another library, I would prefer there be some dollar amount and time threshold being specified so this is applied consistently from library to library (e.g. $50 or more in billed material that has been billed for more than 2 months).  Otherwise, a library could potentially ask us to block one of our resident's cards for an unreturned $3.00 magazine or a resident could be blocked before they have had the opportunity to clear the charge at the reciprocal library.

We have an item from Library XYZ that was requested by Bob Smith, who live in Library ABC district, from his house,  but Bob went to Library ABC to get the material.   I think this question needs to be addressesed.  Since we are looking at greater cooperation among libraries than we did in the past.  I for one cannot call it interlibrary loan because for me, the library has to intiate the request.  It is not reciprocal borrowing because the patron is not leaving the taxing distrcit of its library to get the needed material from another library.  How would we count this in the resource sharing.

section 3 A 2 b: are you going to define "significant imbalance"? Or is each library going to determine that? The draft defines how many items, or how restrictive the limitation.

Many times it is mentioned that libraries need to keep their policies updated on the L2 website but that web address is never noted, not even in the Definitions section.

Section IV.A.3&4: these two statements can be combined in the following manner: Within 30 days of board action,...effective dates, and fee formula by visiting the RAILS website and completing the Non-Residen Card..."

So, no billing between libraries, interesting but will it work? For instance, how will a patron's home library asssist with the retrieval of delinquent materials?   Then, how will that libary assist with the collection of payments? What were the thoughts of the committee here?

Then, in d) how will we know if a library is or isn't honoring a request to block a patron? And, if they don't honor the request and the patron is allowed to borrow from another consortium or a stand-alone library and doesn't return that material,  who's responsible? At this point, the patron's home library should be responsible (b/c they didn't comply with the first request) but then, how do you prove that the first library even requested that the patron be blocked? This section seems a little murky.  Like Chicago allows, we need online patron verification for all LLSAPS. Isn't someone or a group working on this? With online verification of patrons, we could easily see if a library complied with this sort of request or not.

Section III.A.1.: Only point a) is needed and please note that a 'valid library account' means that the person is in good standing.

Section III.A.2.a): If we have to have exclusions, isn't it time for audiovisual materials to be fair game? Let's make digital media the new collection to be restricted and allow audiovisual material to be loaned as freely as books.

Section III.A.2.b): Significant Imbalance should be highlighted somehow here and defined.  Before I got to the definitions page, I did not realize that this was a phrase that needed defining. Also, maybe add a statement that ONLY these libraries may limit the number of items for recip. borrowers to a lower number than loaned to their own patrons.

Section III.A.1.: Only point a) is needed except that a 'valid library account' means that the person is in good standing.

Section III.A.2.a): If we have to have exclusions, isn't it time for audiovisual materials to be fair game? Let's make digital media the new collection to be restricted and allow audiovisual material to be loaned as freely as books.

Section III.A.2.b): Significant Imbalance should be highlighted somehow here and defined.  Before I got to the definitions page, I did not realize that this was a phrase that needed defining. Also, maybe add a statement that ONLY these libraries may limit the number of items for recip. borrowers to a lower number than loaned to their own patrons.

Section II.B.1.: How does RAILS plan to "monitor" all system resource sharing activities and for what purpose?

Section II. A. 2. "shall only impose restriction as necessary as required...", is this redundant or am I missing something?

A paragraph should be inserted explaining that local LLSAP agreements take precedence over this agreement.  The System resource sharing policy is effective when no other agreement exists, isn't it?  For instance, the SWAN resource sharing billing policy would be the policy to follow between SWAN libraries, not this policy.

I agree that sections III (Reciprocal Borrowing) A 1, a & c seem redundant.  The very slight difference between the two may lie in the existence of several "Affiliate" libraries in Iowa, which would not be covered by "a".  But, if you're accounting for those, eliminating "a" would still cover everybody.

As for the comment on "significant imbalance", I was thinking the same thing at first. It seemed like a fuzzy designation. The term is defined at the end, though.  Whether you or your library board agree with the choice of that threshhold would be another story, I guess.

Who is to define what a "significant imbalance" is in reciprocal borrowing?  Should each library have a graded scale with names of individuals from different libraries who, one way or another, have caused an imbalance?  How does one even define "significant imbalance?"  We are a significant net lender, reciprocal borrowing and ILL combined; I have a board member who believes that "reciprocal borrowing" means one book in, one book out.  Yet somehow our shelves always seem to be full enough to provide for the needs of patrons.  I find Section III (A) 2 (b) to be potentially problematic.

3. In the spirit of cooperation and because all RAILS libraries face the challenge of not being able to monitor or control which libraries their patrons visit or the lending policies of other libraries, RAILS public libraries shall agree not to bill other RAILS libraries for lost/damaged materials and shall agree to share responsibility for these items, except as noted in item 3d below. RAILS public libraries shall:
a) Hold a reciprocal borrower personally and financially responsible to the lending library for all fines and other fees resulting from overdue, lost or damaged materials.

This is not clear to me.  Do you mean "Hold a [member, patron, customer] of their library personally and financially  responsible for all fines and other fees resulting from overdue, lost or damaged materials which that [member, patron, customer] borrowed reciprocally."?

Could you clarify the difference between 1a and 1c under Responsibilities of All RAILS Public Libraries. My reading is the two points are the same, one just included Other Illinois Library Systems. 1a seems the more inclusive statement.

Thanks for the clarification.

Library responsibilities and practices under III-A-3 Billing should apply in either Recirocal borrowing OR interlibrary loan!