This is a message from CTLS-L. Selecting "Reply" will send a message to the entire list. --------------------------------------------------------- Our
ordinance specifies a penalty of "up to $500.00 per overdue item." The
reality is that our judges have decided that the maximum penalty they will
assign is $250.00 per case.
Yes,
we have seen a significant decline in overdues since passing our
ordinance. At the time we went to our city council requesting the
ordinance, we were loosing over $16,500 a year to unreturned
materials. During the first several months after the ordinance was passed,
we so a very sharp drop in unreturned and extremely overdue materials--somewhere
around 75% less than before the ordinance. Over time it has increased
again, but we now only loose about $8,000- $9,000 a year to unreturned items,
and we get paid for more of the unreturned items than in the
past.
We
have had several cases reach the prosecution stage, but our ordinance went into
effect over 3 years ago, so that is to be expected. In general, our courts
try to make it very easy for people to avoid prosecution. Once the summons
is mailed out, the patron can still avoid any court costs or prosecution by
returning the materials to the library prior to the date that they must appear
in court. Or, if the patron waits until their court date and goes before
the judge, both of our judges give them 48 hours to come to the library and
return or pay for the missing items. If the patron does so, the case is
dismissed and they don't lose any money. However, if a patron fails to
respond to a summons, the judges don't take that as well--a warrant is
issued. After the warrant is issued, the patron will end up paying all of
the applicable court costs (usually around $65-$100) plus the fine ordered by
the judge PLUS they still must either return the materials to us or pay us for
the lost items. I believe we've had 32 people go to this point so
far.
Community reaction was divided. Many of the
people who were initially reacted with horror at the idea of the
ordinance came around to seeing our side after a little discussion.
We worked hard to get the word out that was only being used for cases of
extremely overdue materials--items around 3 months or more overdue.
Ultimately, the thing that won over most people was when we'd tell them how much
of THEIR tax money was being lost each year in unreturned materials. That
really got some people thinking. Up to that point, I think many of them
had just assumed we were being petty or alarmist about a $100 worth of
unreturned materials. Once we showed them that the reality was over
$16,000 each year, many people jumped on the bandwagon. By the end of the
first year, nobody seemed to voicing objections any more. To the best of
my knowledge, we haven't lost any borrowers over the issue.
Is
there anything I would do differently? Yes, I would've asked for the
ordinance a year earlier. And I would've done my best to get on the
agendas at places like the Rotary Club, Kiwanis, Lions' Club, etc., to explain
in advance what we were doing. I got the chance with Rotary, and just
having some of their club members telling their friends why we were asking for
an ordinance on overdue materials really helped get the message out. And
that message was and is: "We are trying to be good stewards of public
money and to keep the library's resources available for
everyone."
Deanna Frazee
--------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Include in body: unsubscribe ctls-l For information on CTLS-L please visit: http://www.ctls.net/document/ctls-l.htm |
- Ordinances for overdue materials cclib
- RE: Ordinances for overdue materials slilley
- RE: Ordinances for overdue materials Dale Ricklefs
- RE: Ordinances for overdue materials Deanna Frazee
- RE: Ordinances for overdue materials Beth Fox
