For some libraries, when using guarantor/guarantee relationships, they would like to see that blocks occur on the entire family. For example, if a guarantor/guarantee has been blocked either by an overdue process or a manual restriction- this block would be also placed on the other linked accounts. Once a restriction has been removed, the restrictions on all accounts would be removed.
Kelly is AWESOME!!! For clarification; Only minors are eligible to be guarantees in our library system; guarantors are only adults and may only guarantee minor children. This enhancement is a very big need for us; patrons "play the game;" when one person in the linked grouping is delinquent, they blow it off and use another family member's card. Adding restrictions manually to each family member in the linked account is very time consuming, and confusion and frustration (and more time) occurs when the removal of the restriction on all accounts is missed. Our previous ILS did this as a "standard protocol" process; i.e., any changes to things within the family linked group affected all linked accounts. This is not only important for patron/circulation accountability, but it is also important regarding edits to address and contact information; which should automatically update based on the edit in the guarantor.
+1 Our library handles blocks for linked accounts in the same way as Wally's library. It takes a lot of staff time to manually block all of the associated accounts. Staff generally also adds notes to each account so that anyone assisting a patron can understand why the accounts are blocked. Having this functionality would save so much staff time and reduce errors.
Please please please implement this. Staff often forget to unblock link accounts which can upset patrons trying to check out materials or trying to use our electronic resources. This would be very helpful.
Yes! Yes! Yes! We would absolutely love this feature at our library. Like others have said, manually blocking/blocking all of the guarantee accounts is time consuming and oftentimes forgotten about.
Koha-US VP has requested ideas for sponsored development. I am unashamedly campaigning for this bug to win the sponsorship prize!!! If you feel this is a worthwhile development, PLEASE comment, share, and ask others to also comment and send the Development Committee an email at development@koha-us.org of their interest in development of Bug 31329. Thanks! :-) (Happy Thanksgiving everyone!)
Actually, express your interest via: Submit your proposals here to have your development considered: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdR5nodA8jGa-9dchqOkFN_2O1mYyz8oej2IevxQYKtft7s-w/viewform
Maybe consider https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=32444 before taking this bug on? Just a thought.
Definitely this would be worthwhile. Our circumstance is like others described, with adult guarantors and juvenile guarantees. We need that leverage to ensure adults deal with the issue at hand.
This feature would be very useful. Please consider. Thanks.
(In reply to Christopher Brannon from comment #7) > Maybe consider > https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=32444 before > taking this bug on? Just a thought. My response to that bug: Reviewing both bugs I would love for a way to link a group of folks, like Christopher is suggesting in bug 32444. We have an organization that takes responsibility for dependent adults. Having the ability to link those folks together would be far better than putting in a note like we are doing now. Also, we are the minority in that we do not want to restrict the whole family when one person's account gets restricted. If a child has an overdue book we still allow the parent to check out on their account. If 31329 goes into effect I'm worried that would completely change our process IF there wouldn't be a way to opt out of the group restricting. These two bugs do compliment each other. We are happy with how the system works now for our library aside from it having to be a child, like Michael mentioned in 32444. And we don't want to restrict the whole gang if one member goes down. Mollie's two cents.
Mollie, I agree with you in the sense that this needs to be an opt-in toggle, or even a system preference we can turn on or off as the default preference setting. The workflows of all libraries at its core are standard. However, every library has its unique workflow and Koha's/ByWater's task is to make it such that Koha is as customizable as possible for all libraries. Hopefully the wizards at ByWater will be able work their magic to make it happen. :-) PS...I honestly think Bug 31329 and Bug 32444 could be merged; they are in the same realm of patron account management. Just a thought.