Technology Fee Advisory Committee Mtg
March 3, 2004 Memorial Union, Crest Room (Draft)
Member Present:
Chair Sudhir Mehta, Otto
Borchert, Kevin Brooks, Jane Cumber, Jeff Gerst, Cathy Hanson,
Kalpana Katti, Dustin Massett, Joe Mathern, Tom Moberg, Rian
Nostrom, Ryan Sandness, Marc Wallman
Member Absent:
Jerry Covington, David
Wittrock, Craig Schnell (ex-officio)
Comments from Sudhir Mehta:
Sudhir welcomed everyone and distributed budget data showing
approximate income and expenses for FY04 and FY05. The proposed
TFAC increase is not included, as it needs approval by the SBHE
before it can go into effect. For clarification, in the spring, we
approve to fund projects with money that is not technically
available until July 1, 2004. The carry over money helps to begin
purchasing items needed to begin needed work during the summer.
Proposal discussion:
Sudhir handed out six
proposals to be evaluated prior to the upcoming review session.
Discussion took place regarding four proposals submitted by ITS.
Tom Moberg had indicated his desire was to submit these to Provost
Schnell as core funding needs. After review of the available
funding, he indicated he'd like the ITS directors to evaluate these
proposals again and consolidate them into one proposal and
streamline cost even more. ITS would present a single proposal to
Provost Schnell with costs breakdowns related to all staffing,
equipment, clusters, printing, and training areas. This would be
for core services that need ongoing funding.
The students want the proposal to still be submitted to TFAC as part of the process. They are concerned about the loss of a student voice.
Other discussion included the new classroom proposal. This was submitted as a result of the recommendation from the Computer Information Technology Planning and Goals committee.
Primary reviewers were assigned to each proposal and TFAC members should contact the project directors for additional information regarding the proposal.
The proposal for wiring University Village for Internet access raised a number of questions. There was discussion as to whether student government actually was in favor of this. Also, the subject of a campus master plan came up and how would this fit into what's priority.
All of these questions need more clarification and further discussion.
Next meeting will be at the Group Decision Center to review proposals.
No further business, meeting adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Hanson