Technology Fee Advisory Committee Mtg
January 12, 2004 Memorial Union, Crest Room
Chair - Sudhir Mehta, Otto Borchert, Kevin Brooks, Jane Cumber, Jeff Gerst, Joe Mathern, Ryan Sandness, Jim Ross-substituting for Tom Moberg, David Wittrock, Cathy Hanson
Jerry Covington, Kalpana Katti, Dustin Massett, Tom Moberg, Rian Nostrom, Marc Wallman, Craig Schnell (ex-officio)
Comments from Sudhir Mehta:
Sudhir welcomed members and asked for approval of pending minutes from fall semester 2003. Minutes are posted on the TFAC Web site. Approved.
Technology Fee assessment:
Joe Mathern led the discussion regarding the issue of increasing the technology fee. This committee has been working on reviewing the technology fee assessment in anticipation of needing to raise it. Jim Ross, who was filling in for Tom Moberg, shared information requested by TFAC with regard to ITS technology-funded expenditures from the year 2000 through the current year and projects for three years out (through 06-07). The report indicated the amount spent and detailed comments. Based on expenditures from the past years, future funding projected increases over the next three years average five percent. These figures for clusters, classrooms and Service Center, Jim noted, are only to continue to maintain and support what we have now. This does not include new instrumented classrooms, new clusters, or new services nor additional staff. Also noted, is the fact that Provost Schnell allocated ~$250,000 to instrument 15 new classrooms last summer.
ITS has established a model and methodology to ?fully cost-out? what it takes to build a completely new standardized cluster as well as to maintain existing ones.
The projected figure grand totals by year:
This includes the fixed costs or ongoing costs to support, replace and maintain what we currently have in place.
Includes Public Cluster Support, Classroom Technology, and Service Center
- Current: FY2003-04 $606,870
- Projection: FY2004-05 $647,021
- Projection: FY2005-06 $679,372
- Projection: FY06-07 $713,341
Discussion followed that included several questions.
- What's the appropriate number of classrooms to instrument or create this year? Next year?
- How much will it cost?
- Do we have some type of campus-wide plan that could help us establish priorities?
The campus Computer Information Technology Planning and Goals committee is currently helping to lead this effort.
Additionally, the committee talked about departments researching other sources to fund technology projects.
The huge amount of dollars being spent for cluster printing per year might be better managed (10M+ pages printed). He offered suggestions as perhaps limiting the number of ?free? copies and those who go over are charged. Another thought, is to leverage a third-party vendor resources and economies of scale discounts for handling campus printing needs. Jim Ross is leading ITS in examining this possibility. These suggestions or proposals need further investigation and would also need full campus support.
Along the same lines, Jim also talked about duplication of software, in this case a classroom-scheduling package. Cluster scheduling takes a huge part of the Service Centers' time. Scheduling of classrooms and clusters? whether they be instrumented or not is probably not an IT function. Registrar schedules classrooms, ITS schedules clusters - the basic difference is what's in them.
Members of the subcommittee reviewing the Technology Fee assessment have examined various notable surveys to establish a comparison base for discussion what NDSU might want to consider doing Currently the assessment is at $55 dollars per semester for students taking 12 credits or more. One of the surveys indicated that 63% of public institutions have a tech fee assessment of $187/per year. NDSU's assessment is substantially less in comparison to other peer institutions and survey findings
After discussion, Joe Mathern motioned to have NDSU consider raising the technology fee $5/per semester (six terms) over the next three years starting Fall 2004 (will be at $85.00 /semester by 2008).
Jane Cumber mentioned it is important that students be aware of all of the fee increases for this coming fall. Last spring the student body vote approved the Memorial Union renovation and expansion by increasing the Union fee [from $15 per semester to $27 per semester reaching $46.20 per semester by Fall 2007] and the Wellness Center expansion by increasing the Wellness Fee [from $80 per semester to $122 per semester beginning Spring 2005]. This past fall student government also made a recommendation for a new Library fee to VP Schnell.
The students present, made several points to indicate that technology is something that will help make this institution continue on its path to the Next Level and are very much in support of the action even with the additional fees being imposed.
Dr. Schnell plans to inform the State Board of Higher on January 26, 2004 about NDSU's intent regarding the tech fee issue. The proposal will require some open forum discussions from students and approved by student government before going forward to the President and the SBHE.
Sudhir asked for feedback on the revised progress report submittal form. The basic change included more information and details related to the meeting proposal milestones. There was agreement that it looked good.
Jane reported, as chair of the Assessment Subcommittee, reminder emails had been sent to project directors for Spring 2003, Fall 2002 and Spring 2002 Technology Fee funding regarding the due date for their midterm or final report. No response has been received from the project directors for the Fall and Spring 2002 final report. What is the next step to get these reports submitted? Is there any type of consequences for those receiving a grant and not completing a final report? Sudhir responded by indicating we should take this into account when renewals or new proposals are submitted. If departments or individuals are in default of submitting a report, any requests for future funding should not be considered until such reports are satisfactorily submitted and reviewed.
Jeff Gerst asked about the upcoming Spring 2004 proposal review and how the process was going to be handled. CITPG be assessing classroom proposals, submitting a prioritized list to the Tech Fee committee, who will make a funding recommendation after reviewing the proposals.
Next meeting to be scheduled
No further business, meeting adjourned