Ability to mark an item Missing or Damaged if it not owned or assigned to branch
In our 21-branch library system, staff need the ability to mark items as Damaged or Missing—even if the item is not owned or assigned to their specific branch. Currently, the process requires multiple logins and workstation changes, creating inefficiencies that impact service.
We've encountered lots of item management issues since migrating from SirsiDynix Symphony. Most recent issue was with handling lost-and-returned items. Specifically, when a customer returns a lost item to a branch that does not own it, and the item is damaged, staff struggle to process it effectively. Our policy requires holding damaged items for six months in case of customer complaints, meaning the item’s location must be correctly reflected in the ILS.
Right now, to update the item's status as damaged and ensure it remains at the non-owning branch, staff must complete several steps:
- Check in the item—its status changes to In-Transit.
- Log out.
- Log in under the owning branch.
- Check in the item—the status changes to Available.
- Log out again.
- Log back into the branch where the item was returned.
- Check it in as Damaged.
While we recognize that there’s an option to prevent items from automatically being placed In-Transit, we believe disabling this setting would require additional clicks for all check-ins, which may not be ideal.
We'd love the ability for all staff to be able to update circulation status regardless of owning or assigned branch OR be able to set the owning branch to System level and have the guide this permission.

-
Aaron Thomas commented
Changing Circulation Status is very clunky for Polaris. However, permissions need to work for staff to mark as MISSING, DISCARD, etc. without a lengthy workaround needs to be addressed. It can take minutes to change one item's circulation status when it should only take seconds.
-
Lynn Reynish commented
I definitely understand this request because Missing and Damage and, frankly, any kind of Item Maintenance is a pain. That said, we would want the owning branch set at the Library level - not System and not Branch. As we're part of a consortium, we find System gives too much access and Branch gives too little. The ideal would be to let each system choose between any of the levels for where to set this kind of thing.