2022-05-23 Resource Access Meeting Notes

Time	Item	Who	Description	Goals/Info/notes
20min	Administrivia	Jana Freytag		Note taker: Elizabeth Chenette
35 Min	Fee/Fine anonymization	Holly Mistlebauer
20 Min	Multiple fee/fine charges or actions (pay, waive, transfer, error or refund) on a single notice for a patron	julie.bickle	UXPROD-2252 - Multiple fee/fine charges or actions (pay, waive, transfer, error or refund) on a single notice for a patron In Refinement Check the use cases again + compare them against what is technically (reasonably) feasible.

Meeting Notes

Note: Refunds subgroup meeting June 6, 2022, at noon est. after the regular FOLIO RA SIG meeting.

First meeting will offer demo of refund process in OLE and Aleph.

Meeting topic 1) Fee/Fine Anonymization – Holly Mistlebauer

Holly shared a slide deck about loan anonymization:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Osu5z9i9B04lJ0WF8X7hOVWRvzsJDjcX5JJ6q9c8jDs/edit?usp=sharing

She is responsible for fee/fine data when a loan is anonymized and found that it didn’t work the way she thought it would. Options in loan history:

Anonymize closed loans --Immediately after loan closes, at a designated time after the loan closes, or Never

Anonymize closed loans with associated fees/fines--No special processing, Immediately, After X amount of time, or Never

Could keep closed loans with assoc. fee/fines for however long you need them. Checkbox in Folio to Treat closed loans with associated fee/fines differently. Can add exceptions for payment options (this part is still being developed)

Related UXPRODS and UIUs:

https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UXPROD-2069 Anonymizing closed loans through settings: exception for fee/fine action

https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UIU-1044 Show item and loan information on anonymized loans

https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UXPROD-1853 Scrub loan and item information from Fee/fine records

3 Issues Holly identified when testing anonymization on FOLIO Lotus bug fest:

Even after lost item fees are paid/transferred the loans are closed the loans are not being anonymized. Why?

Loan history settings appear to work, but no loan anonymization when lost items with fee/fines.

Failed anonymization had to do with lost and pay/transfer. Is it looking at the status or the action?

Loan was not anonymized when a fine was attached to a loan. The group is thinking this is desired behavior.

Chicago isn’t anonymizing currently.

Status (lost) could be causing this? Action could be causing this? What is looked at when loans with fee/fines are anonymized?

2. After a loan with an associated fee/fine is anonymized the fee/fine records still contains private metadata; the loan-related policies have been removed, but the other identifying information, such as instance, contributors, barcode, etc. remains.

We told Emma we wanted to keep that info on the loan. Not sure we discussed what should happen with the fee/fine.

Holly wants to make sure people understand how this is working. Currently, no way to totally get rid of the loan data. Anonymizing a loan removes the user ID from the loan. But it retains all the other stuff, without the link to the user record. When the loan is anonymized, but the fee fine is not, fee/fine still has the user, instance, contributor, barcode, etc. It doesn’t have the policies because those were on the loan, and you’ve broken the link to the loan. Per Erin, this looks correct. Everything else seems reasonable to retain in the US, but what do other countries think?

Holly was thinking that this loan is anonymized but not really anonymized.

Only way to view fees/fines is through the Users app, so it is hard to visualize this now.

Problem -- If the overdue fine policy is removed, then we can’t tell why the fee/fine was charged.

Fee still showing but no policies showing. Where’s the underlying data?

Holly asked Devs to leave the policies because it isn’t very helpful to have the billed amount without the policy.

Need input from the European Libraries. If it is not linked to a person any longer, it shouldn’t be a concern for GDPR at all? In the example, this fee/fine is still connected to the patron. An institution needs to anonymize fees/fines and loans, both steps, manually. There will be institutions that want to anonymize loans and fee/fines separately. Or possibly do these two things on different schedules. This needs to be talked through and workflow examined by the German libraries.

Settings as Holly has described – if this fee has been paid or transferred, then anonymize it.

In this example, the loan has been anonymized and the fee has not, because there is no fee anonymization yet at all. This is an upcoming feature.

The private data is the patron name. When anonymized, patron name goes away.

David at UChicago recommends that Loan details should be stored locally and retained and only anonymized based on fee/fine anonymization because you need to keep the info that tells you why this fee was generated.

Holly will recommend that Loan policy, Overdue fine policy, Lost item fee policy be left on the record.

Open question -- Are there institutions using FOLIO that aren’t going to be using LDP that will need access to fees? When you don’t have an LDP, and you need statistics that you have to get manually?

There is no statistical counter for number of fee/fines. Two in-app reports on fees/fines that are launchable from Users app to get to the info.

Other options haven’t been implemented, but they display as options in Settings

3. Do loans with associated fees/fines that have been transferred need to be anonymized on a different schedule?

Other loan options for anonymization haven’t been implemented yet.

Holly will check into where the underlying data is kept.

Overdue fine and lost item fine those are fee/fine policies; they’re not really for the loan.

SIG members will get back to Holly when they have something from the German side. They will comment on the slidedeck if needed.

Meeting topic 2) Multiple fee/fine charges or actions (pay, waive, transfer, error, or refund) on a single notice for a patron – Julie Bickle

Looking into features for notices that are missing. Multiple fee/fines. What are the scenarios in your daily activities – paying, or actioning, charging on example items?

David -- Charging is the issue at Chicago. Use case = Fixed due dates. Everything on a user account gets charged lost processing fee because they all aged to lost on the same day. They don’t send lost item fee charge notices at all. As a workaround, they send final overdue notices that has a template to explain to the patron that these items will be getting billed. Disadvantage doesn’t get a total. Each of these will give you $150 fine. Doesn’t say you owe us $9700 . . . no total stored on the account. Wouldn’t be the same totals. Total on your account may not be the same as what’s currently being charged.

No notice “you returned this book” fee waived action . . .? Again need to not send 300 separate notices

Charging the lost item fee is automated. Bundling overnight to charge. Total being billed now is important to note.

Emails -- Two things to consider -- Which template? What is the trigger?

Could use Single template = all these things got paid, send the notices together on one email.

Could use Multiple templates == some specific message about each, so keep the notices separate

For example, Pay these three. Then waive these three. Emails wouldn’t be sent out because of the action, but an Add end session at the bottom could send one email?

Worries about the complexity of what we are trying to do.

Fee/fine creation notice?

Some locations not sending payment notices. Want to batch those. Send out in real-time? Like a check out session.

At the desk, paying something, batch all those actions together. Not a fan of the end session button because people forget to hit it. Process every half hour check and send a notice.

Wanting real life scenarios

Hearing that if we just assume that the actions would allow for multiples in the notices. No extra functionality to add. Would check if there are different notice policies that separate the emails. Possibly different notice policies but use the same template? Can we start from scratch? The action should trigger the notice, and the templates themselves – show fines this type, only trigger one notice on the backend. We do need lost item fees to get batched and can’t wait for notices to get re-worked. (Claimed returned doesn’t stop notices from going out)

Thomas is thinking of the pay and waive side. Everything lost fee/fine could be grouped together.

Julie – can’t promise when it would be developed but she will bump up the priority for writing the feature for batching the lost item fee/fine notices.

Bundling payment fees for transfers

Due date notices – could have instantaneous email and could batch them. – Both could happen at the same time.

Reach out to Julie if you have additional ideas or comments.