Meeting Minutes

February 7, 2002, 2:30 p.m.
Memorial Union, Plains Room

Members Present:
Richard Chenoweth, Jeff Gerst, CathyHanson, James Landrum, Jeff Schoenack, Kay Sizer, Deanne Sperling, Kevin Brooks, Chris Haman, Joe Mathern

Members Absent:
Craig Schnell, Donna Terbizan, Todd Schaffer

The committee approved November 15, 2001 minutes.

Financial Update:
Richard is estimating FY03 income at approximately $950,000. Bond payment is $114,237. We set aside $50,000 for continuation of the modem pool. Richard is suggesting a budget of approximately $650,000 (FY 2002-2003) for the Spring 2002 funding cycle.

The bond payment is a 10 year commitment and should be done in 2006.

Subcommittee reports:

Monitoring process:
Jeff reported that all but one progress report has been turned in for Fall 2000. Notices for Spring 2001 were sent out and he has have received half of them back already. (six of them). A question was raised regarding what happens if we have trouble getting reports turned in? The proposal document does address this concern but perhaps we need to strengthen the fact that this is a requirement. Funding letters also indicate that progress reports are required. Also talked about was a reminder on the use of the tech fee logo or reference to indicate project was funded by tech fee dollars.

Review process:
Jeff Gerst distributed an updated draft of the Technology Fee Action Plan Solicitation and Budget document. There were several minor revisions suggested. In addition, in the section "project description" TFAC members suggested a more specific bullet style itemized listing be used to help clarify proposal requirements/expectations. Also, it would be nice if the budget sheet could perform simple calculations. Jeff will make changes and forward to Cathy for posting to website.

The committee agree that it would be a good idea to post the Grant Review Discussion sheet on the website for those interested in knowing how the committee evaluations the proposals.

The question was asked as to whether we want to use the Group Decision Center again for the evaluation process. The session would start around 3 or 4 p.m. with dinner, ending around 7 or 8 p.m. in the evening. There was agreement to pursue date/time for sometime latter part of March.

Public Information:
Deanne S. indicated that she would work with Richard on article for It's Happening. The question was asked as to whether we should send note to staff/faculty and student email student lists. Deanne will consider this option as well.

Old Business:
Nothing noted

New Business:
Richard asked if the committee felt it needed to meet again prior to the funding process. Deanne S. had concerns about continuing to fund paper costs - more so from the perspective of wanting to know how the "free" printing could be more closely monitored for excessive and/or abusive use of this benefit. Should we discuss this issue before the funding cycle? The committee discussed this concern but felt it would be unfair to address right now with the proposal deadline being so close. The discussion was tabled for now.

No further business.

Respectfully submitted,

Cathy Hanson