Yes, David - you can have one fee-fine owner that controls all of your service points. So your centralized model would work.

As far as I know, there is no FOLIO constraint on being able to accept payment for only certain service points. But I could be wrong on that.

Erin

Get Outlook for iOS
From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> on behalf of David W. Bottorff <dbottorff@uchicago.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:10:38 AM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items
 
This doesn’t impact Chicago, as all of our bills are “owned” centrally, so I defer to others.

That having been said, I think holdings permanent location is likely to be correct in most cases. I can certainly imagine a scenario in which there could be a permanent item location that would be correct instead, but those are likely to be extreme outliers.

Ultimately, I imagine libraries would eventually want the ability to edit the fee owner manually to correct any of these outliers, but I don’t think that would be a high priority.

Again, I would ultimately defer to others for whom this is an actual issue, as Chicago doesn’t track this. What does matter is whether we can set the owner to be the same for all bills, or can allow payments of all bills at service points regardless of fee owner. As long as we can ignore fee owner, we’re fine. 

Best,
David 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 31, 2020, at 7:26 AM, Joanne Elisa Leary <jl41@cornell.edu> wrote:


I'd go with the Holdings Perm Location for lost item billing. I can't think of a scenario where this would not be correct. If anyone can think of a case, please chime in.

Joanne Leary
Access Services and Collections Analysis
101E Olin Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY  14853
Ph: (607) 255-5936


From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> on behalf of Erin Nettifee <erin.nettifee@duke.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:57 AM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org>
Subject: RE: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items
 

If an item is lost, you are at the stage where libraries will be charging replacement costs and looking at replacements – thus you really want to go to the permanent location of the item. Which, might be the item effective location for many cases, but not always.

 

EG, if I’m at the main library and put an item on reserve from the Science Library, and someone borrows the item and doesn’t return it, the Science Library is ultimately the one who should get the money to replace it.

 

It might be possible to address those scenarios through reporting, but you’d be asking libraries with multiple branches to be doing more outside manual labor to track those scenarios.

 

My two cents.

 

-Erin

 

From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> On Behalf Of Cate Boerema
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:32 AM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: RE: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items

 

Is there a strong reason not to use Item effective location?  Item effective location is used for circ rules, routing etc.  It feels odd and potentially confusing to look to Holdings permanent location to drive other functionality.

 

 

 

From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> On Behalf Of Erin Nettifee
Sent: 30 January 2020 10:19 PM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: RE: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items

 

CAUTION: External E-mail

 

I think that would work. An item should always have a Holdings Permanent Location, that value is required AFAIK for physical items.

 

I could see scenarios where libraries were making uses of holdings temporary location for things like renovations…. But as long as the behavior was clearly documented, I think that’s the right choice. It’s certainly more consistent than trying to parse when one might apply over the other.

 

-Erin

 

From: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org <folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org> On Behalf Of Holly L. Mistlebauer
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 4:14 PM
To: folio-ra@ole-lists.openlibraryfoundation.org
Subject: Fee/Fine Owner for lost items
Importance: High

 

Hi RA SIG!  Quick (I hope) question for you... 

When an item is overdue, the overdue fine is “owned” by the Effective location for item.  If an item is lost, the lost item fee should be owned by the owning library rather than where it may happen to have been shelved when it was checked out.  Would that location be the Holdings location Permanent location?   (See Item Location section screen print below.)

Thanks,

Holly

 

<image001.png>

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=Ps7yWzb18ZEd00T5MEZ3kcaDhgZHb5Ph