Technology Fee Advisory Committee Mtg
December 10, 2003
Memorial Union, Crest Room
Chair - Sudhir Mehta, Otto Borchert, Jerry Covington, Joe Mathern, Tom Moberg, Rian Nostrom, Kalpana Katti, Jane Cumber, Marc Wallman, Cathy Hanson
Kevin Brooks, Jeff Gerst, Dustin Massett, Ryan Sandness, David Wittrock, Craig Schnell (ex-officio)
Comments from Sudhir Mehta:
Sudhir welcomed members and asked for committee updates.
Public Information: This committee has been working on reviewing the technology fee assessment in anticipation of needing to raise it. Members have searched various other institutions to find establish a comparison base. Generally they have found the range to be between $50-100 per semester. Findings indicate $70-80 appears to be a comparable figure in peer institutions. The questions they are discussing involve do we continue to charge per credit hour, or look at a flat rate fee? Do we implement an increase a on gradual basis over the next years, and if so how much $5, $10 increase - what's the goal figure? The Library and Engineering already have special fees being assessed.
Tom Moberg suggested two other surveys the committee might want look. He said the committee could get more information from him regarding the National EDUCAUSE (Core) Survey, and the Green Campus Computing Survey.
Overall, the committee is working on evaluating further on how best to go about establishing, communicating the need, and implementing an increase in the technology fee assessment students pay. The committee wants to involve student government, hold some open forums, and do some public relations work in regard to the issue.
The questions asked were:
- what's the purpose of the tech fee?
- Is it for printing costs, new technologies, modem pool, classroom support?
This lead to further discussion with regard to is the TFAC knowledge enough about institutional long range IT issues, support, CITPG classroom recommendations? Tom Moberg again talked about the need for establishing an IT governance that would include an IT student advisory committee of which TFAC may be a subcommittee. This group could be tied to those who are policy decision makers in order to voice opinions. Tom indicated he'd like to see an IT governance structure that provides for more long term coherency between student, faculty, staff and department groups /committees.
Tom talked about the cost of printing. Cluster printing has exceeded 10 million pages. There are ways to better manage printing - discussions are underway. What about the modem pool? How long do we continue to support this - is wireless a more important technology to the campus? CITPG does have a method to evaluating the need for IT classroom upgrades- an announcement needs to be done so that any department that feels they have a need should go through the proper channels of contacting first ITS and then CITPG.
Tom also mentioned he'd like to see the submitted proposals be fully costed out. Everything should be included - upfront costs, long term maintenance, replacements, support issues (people), other department involvement, and general administration costs are some of the things that should be included in a good proposal.
Jerry Covington reported this committee has discussed a number of issues with regard to the monitoring process. The committee would like to see reporting done on a more consistent basis (timeline). Also, the committee feels the progress reports should tie more closely to the identified outcomes based on the milestones established. They are working to improve the form so information submitted can be more useful to the campus and committee about the progress/results of the project. Jerry also indicated the committee would be discussing what are the consequences of not meeting milestones, or progress report submittal dates.
This committee has not formally met. Anticipated is that the on-line submittal form may have some minor changes. The subcommittee agreed they would like to see the milestones be very outcome/results oriented and coincide with the requested progress report information.
The Technology Fee Advisory Committee (TFAC) agreed that any request for instrumented classroom technology should be addressed through the simple form on the web, as mentioned in Melissa Stotz e-mail of Dec. 3, 2003. Those requests go through an evaluation process described in her e-mail. The deadline for this consideration is December 19, 2003. Currently, requests/evaluation for instrumented classroom technology priorites only done each fall to be implemented for the next academic year.
From the spring 04 semester, TFAC does not plan to consider any instrumented classroom technology proposals directly.
Next meeting - Monday, January 12, 2004 - 11 a.m.
No further business, meeting adjourned