Fees/Fines
(UXPROD-792)
|
|
| Status: | Draft |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | Fees/Fines |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Fees/Fines |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | TBD |
| Reporter: | Holly Mistlebauer | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | Unassigned-from-Holly, appreport, feesfines, resourceaccess | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Potential Workaround: | Holly: I split UXPROD-499, Collections Agency Interactions into two features. UXPROD-499 now covers only those cases where the collection agency communicates with the patron, but the library still collects the money. New JIRA issue UXPROD-1858 covers cases where the collection agency collects the money and then passes it to the library. The workaround for this feature (UXPROD-1858) is that the library would need to be able to run a query to identify the fees/fines to be sent to collections (based on their unique criteria) and to update the database with a new fee/fine action indicating the action taken with a date/time stamp. I'm not sure how easy that will be to do, so it may make more sense to do this in Q1 2020. When the collections agency pays the library, the library could do a manual payment transaction for the patron or enter a waive with a Waive Reason of "Paid to Collection Agency" (depending on how their accounting is set up). This feature doesn't need the kind of testing others do--usually one person at the library does this--making this available at the last minute won't be such a big issue. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Fees/Fines | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimate: | Medium < 5 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimator: | Holly Mistlebauer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front-End Confidence factor: | Low | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | Medium < 5 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimator: | Holly Mistlebauer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Estimation Notes and Assumptions: | Hasn't been discussed at all yet. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Vega | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Report ID (pre-May 2019): | ID441 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Report Contact(s): |
Joanne Leary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Report Functional Area(s): |
Resource Access
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: FLO (MVP Sum 2020): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Grand Valley (Full Sum 2021): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Institutions work with collections agencies in a variety of ways, so this feature has been split into three parts: Survey of institutions available at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tBzbWo3albd1133eue0xwe8x8D_Wa5uHuBhyHowLXoY/edit#gid=0 Attached image contain in-progress requirements for this feature. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 18/Jul/19 ] |
|
From: Joanne Elisa Leary Sharon, To do this in Folio, we would need to replicate the selection process (based on bill age and patron total). We would need to update the bill records accordingly, annotating them about the action taken, and closing the bills as appropriate. Is this enough info to make a user story? Joanne From: Sharon Marcus Beltaine Holly, Joanne, |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 18/Jul/19 ] |
|
From: Chris Manly This, and one other issue coming from RA-SIG (the need for a ‘department’ field) have come in recently. I’ll bring them to the SIG in e-mail. – From: Holly Mistlebauer <hlm7@cornell.edu> Hi Chris. I have another User Information question. For fees/fines we need a flag that indicates if the user is deceased. If a user is marked as inactive and owes fees/fines, many libraries will send them to a collection agency. If we know the person is deceased, we would like to mark them as such so that they are not sent to a collection agency (libraries just take the loss). Also, the collection agency will often contact the library and tell them the user is deceased. We would like to be able to update User Information to reflect that when it becomes known. This wouldn’t be a flag that is automatically updated, but one that is manually updated by library staff when information is known. |
| Comment by Holly Mistlebauer [ 18/Jul/19 ] |
|
From: Holly L. Mistlebauer Joanne, I have a follow-up question about this very old email about sending fees/fines to collections… So CUL doesn’t care if the patron every pays CUC? By that I mean that CUL marks the bill as “Paid - sent to CUC” and never knows if the patron actually paid CUC or not. Is that true? I need to know because getting data back from CUC adds a layer of complexity. Thanks, |