[Libs-Or] Discourse around charging for damaged or lost items?

[Luke M. Kralik]

Good morning all,
Like many libraries, our library system went fine free a few years ago. There was a lot of professional discussion around this topic, and the reasoning behind the idea was very strong and persuasive. It appeared that as a profession we took a hard look at a long-standing practice, and (largely) decided that it was a barrier to library access that could be removed without compromising our mission to be good stewards of public resources.

With this in the background, our library is in the process of evaluating our policy on charging for damaged or lost items. Like many libraries, we take a sort of "recoup our losses" approach to assessing these charges, and charge what we paid for said item. However, under closer examination, this reasoning falls apart a little.

We do not always use the fees collected to purchase a replacement copy (maybe the book is now out of print, or when we have multiple copies that will probably be winnowed down anyway). Sometimes we are able to purchase a new copy for less than what we originally paid. In any event, there are times where there seems to be a real disconnect between what we charge and our stated motivation of recouping costs.

We are considering adopting a "standard replacement cost" approach (for example $5 for a paperback, $10 for a hardback, $x for a picture book, $y for a DVD...) rather than charging what we originally paid for the item, or negotiating with the patron when they find a less expensive copy than what we have listed in the ILS.

Do any of you have an alternative model in place for assessing these types of charges? Or could you point me to where this issue is being discussed? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Luke

PS: I don't know if anyone else thinks this is interesting, but if you think of the library as providing access to a collection, as opposed to individual items, it kind of makes sense that the patron is being charged for "degrading the collection" as opposed to "paying for item replacement". This idea is a little half-baked, but is sort of informing our early thoughts on this.

PPS: The reason I made the comparison to "fine free" is that while we need some mechanism for preserving access to the materials, it seems sort of unfair to have a greater penalty for damaging this book in comparison to the penalty charged for damaging this other book. The patron behavior/mistake is the same.


[cid:image002.jpg at 01DB51F9.4CABB6B0]
Luke Kralik (he/him) |  Main Library Manager
TILLAMOOK COUNTY  |  Library
1716 3rd Street
Tillamook, OR 97141
Phone  (503) 842-4792 x 1760
luke.kralik at tillamookcounty.gov<mailto:luke.kralik at tillamookcounty.gov>

This e-mail is a public record of Tillamook County and is subject to the State of Oregon Retention Schedule and may be subject to public disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law. This e-mail, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please send a reply e-mail to let the sender know of the error and destroy all copies of the original message.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20241219/3c01a911/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20800 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20241219/3c01a911/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4147 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20241219/3c01a911/attachment-0001.jpg>