Technology Fee Advisory Committee Mtg
March 3, 2004 Memorial Union, Crest Room (Draft)
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
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.
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.
- Additionally, has this proposal been fully costed?
- Are the University Village residents willing to pay for this service?
- What about cable modem access?
- Could we/should we think about a bond to help develop this infrastructure. Also, what about the possibility of wireless?
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