Beth Sandore opened the meeting at 1:31pm
1. Updating cataloging permissions– Michael Norman relayed that errors in the catalog are occurring more often, in particular, there has been a rise in errors coming from outside of Technical Services. In part, Michael believes this is due to waning efforts in Voyager training and employee movement. Recent examples include improper recording of withdrawn items and/or transfer of items to other library locations.
CAM recommends an audit of current cataloging clearances to existing permissions in each unit and what access is needed to execute daily job functions. CAM will then suggest which clearances need to be revoked, changed, or added. Michael stressed that no clearances will be affected that interfere with day-to-day job duties. This process will re-centralize necessary clearances in departments that perform these functions often and correctly, so that inconsistency is drastically reduced. This effort will allow CAM to gauge the current levels of training for Voyager at the department level.
Mary Schlembach inquired whether training support can be provided on an “as-needed basis” for special cataloging situations and Mike agreed that, in some cases, sending a person to the unit works better for training. Sandy asked whether there could be a full-feedback loop and Michael committed to investigating the current feedback system to determine whether the librarians are getting the follow-up they need for project resolution. When CAM performs work on a title or a group of items, departmental libraries don’t always receive any kind of confirmation that the work has been completed by CAM staff. Jeff suggested Mike check the OTRS settings to determine whether users are receiving the ‘update’ and ‘closing’ messages.
Mary S. asked whether AC members are tasked with bringing this to their staff or if Michael will send out the communication. Michael commits to send out an email to all staff explaining the upcoming changes, but thinks it would be important for units to follow-up at division meetings. The permissions review should be complete by the end of March; the units with the most catalogers will be the starting point for this project.
2. Creation of a “missing” virtual location– Michael turned the attention to the “Missing Items” tables illustrating the number of missing items in the catalog by both unit and year. Mike displayed a Voyager record to demonstrate how a library patron is forced to sift through ‘missing’ records to locate those items are actually held by the library or hosted online. Mike stressed the importance of streamlining the user experience so only records containing accessible copies are displayed. To this end, Michael proposed the creation of the "Missing" branch location to remove the items from the catalog for patrons. Mary L. input that the proposed process is similar to that of withdrawn items.
Jenny Johnson expressed her appreciation for this new process, but noted that some of the missing items are just errors in “dirty” data - where records were duplicated or incorrectly coded in a data conversion. Mary L. also noted that some systems do not "talk" to each other, i.e. Oak Street inventory and Voyager, and there is not an automatic synchronization of the data for identical materials across the databases.
Michael raised the question of how long the item should be listed in Voyager as ‘missing’ before the record is moved to the “Missing” Branch location. He also indicated that Library soon needs to decide what to do with locations in Voyager that are no longer in use. This process will not be employed with missing serials; it is only being applied to monographs. Mary and Michael indicated that all of the missing items will be found in a batch process. Michael will send an email communication out about this change as well.
3. User Services Advisory Group GREAT Customer Service Standards - User Services was contacted by Staff Development & Training committee to draft guidelines for customer service - GREAT is the result (see supplemental material). These guidelines have been reviewed by several subcommittees and staff members in “cookie break” discussions hosted by the User Services Advisory Group. Sue asks that the Administrative Council endorse and approve the final version for use in forthcoming training.
A discussion on work dress began related to the GREAT Customer Service Standards section "Greet all customers and make them feel welcomed' where it states "To create a welcoming and positive environment, we will ...." ... (2nd bullet point) "Be professional in attire, language and etiquette." The question came up about what is meant in the standards by the term 'professional attire', particularly for those student and other employees working directly with the public at public service points? As the term 'professional attire' would have different meanings and expectations by different supervisors and employees, the question was asked, "Do we have any policies in place that would provide for consistency of expectation?" Much discussion was had over whether it will be prudent to institute a dress code in conjunction with these guidelines. Consensus determined that guidelines or examples would be useful for unit heads should they have to clarify expectations with student or professional staff; however, a universal dress code is not realistic or desired. Susan Avery will check with Lori Mestre to determine whether the UGL guidelines will be useful to share.
Sue asks once more for the endorsement of the Administrative Council. Beth moves to endorse and all are in favor. Sue will pass the GREAT service guidelines to Staff Development & Training committee to begin implementation. User Services will discuss the viability of providing dress code guidelines and Sue will report the committee’s advice back to the AC at a future meeting.
The meeting concluded at 2:32pm