Reports, Review Process
Meeting Minutes(Pending final approval)
Technology Fee Advisory Committee Meeting
Tuesday February 29, 2000
9:30 am - 11:00 am , IACC 204
Doug Boe, Richard Chenoweth (chair), John Grosen, Jonathon Guay, James Landrum, Linda Manikowske, Sudhir Mehta, Jeff Schoenack, Deanne Sperling, Dustin Rehkamp
Dr.Craig Schnell, Adam Dahl, Jeff Gerst, Jamie Sebelius
The minutes from 1-27-00 were approved.
Richard Chenoweth reviewed the Tech Fee draft budget for FY01. He estimates there will be approximately $170,000 in carry-over money and projects the income to be $850,000. After the bond payment of $114,237, there should be approximately $905,763 for Tech Fee activities for FY01. Recommended spending is a maximum of $600,000 in spring of 2000, leaving $100,000 for fall 2000. Also, $25,000 is paid to support modem pool lines. This would leave a carry-over of $120,793 for carry-over or unanticipated technology costs.
The question was asked as to whether it would be to our advantage to look at paying off the bond early or can we even consider doing that? Richard will look into that.
Jeff Schoenack distributed a draft of the survey which is being worked on for the web and asked for comments. Cathy Hanson and ITS staff are working on the implementation details.
John Grosen indicated that he has not received any additional reports. He will go through and compare what has been received to any outstanding reports still missing.
West Dining Center Discussion:
Richard opened the floor for discussion West Dining Room Cluster feedback that has been generated and circulated to the committee. John Grosen indicated ITS just took out a cluster in that area due to lack of use. Discussion indicated the area or space under discussion is a totally different area and a number of differences were sited as to why there was interest in the area under discussion. The recent Spectrum indicated that the student body did support this potential cluster. The question was asked if those students who have been "lobbying" for this cluster represent a majority viewpoint or are they a small unique number with speciality concerns. Richard indicated he has not replied to any of the feedback of general concern unless there was a specific question asked or mis-information within the context of the feedback provided. The student feedback provided for both "for and against" comments of this cluster.
The committee discussed how the review process worked from previous years and whether to continue to use the same format. Richard provided the group with forms used last time to assist the members with the review process.
A suggestion was made by Richard that we might want to pre-rank the proposals on an individual basis prior to the meeting. Several members felt uncomfortable doing that without at least some discussion. Last year, each proposal was discussed briefly, a vote was taken using a 1-5 rating of how each member viewed the merit of a particular proposal after that brief discussion. Once all the proposals had been initially discussed, a priority ranking was then determined to help initiate further in-depth discussion about each proposal and whether funding should or should not be recommended and a final vote taken.
Discussion also took place as to how to help "move" the discussion along and yet allow amble time for each proposal to be adequately reviewed. A suggestion was made that we might want to consider the Group Decision Center for the review process. A number of benefits were discussed regarding the use of the GDC and a motion was made and seconded to pursue using this program to aid in the review process.
The proposals are due March 15, 2000. They will be available to be picked up on Monday, March 20, in Richard Chenoweth's Office - Old Main 103. A tentative date for the review is April 6th starting at 4:00 pm -11:00 pm (finishing sooner if possible) in the GDC over in the Union. We will have a super included.
No further business. Meeting adjourned.