TFAC - Novell Servers; By-Laws discussion
Minutes, Technology Fee Advisory Committee
February 5, 2009
3:30 p.m., Arikara Room, Memorial Union
Voting Members Present: Brian Fier, Peter Gregory, Abram Jackson, Nathan Nerenz, Ann Denton, Chris Hart, Rian Nostrum, Michael Thrasher, Britt McAlister, Arun Yadav
Voting Members Absent: Andrew Brown, Ben Dotzenrod, Chris McEwe, Gary Fisher, Jim Hammond,
Ex-Officio Members Present: Jeff Gerst, Bonnie Neas, Cathy Hanson, David Wittrock
Invited Guest: Janet Stringer, Joel Heilman, voting member Ben Dotzenrod
Ex-Officio Members Absent: all present
Gerst opened the meeting by welcoming VP Neas to meeting. Jackson opened the floor with discussion on the proposal submitted by Marc Wallman and Jon Bronken, Replacement of 13 Novell Servers. He had some concerns about no milestones being listed. Those milestones hinged on the timing involved with getting equipment. If funding and plans come together work could begin earlier than May. Jackson commented that Marc thoroughly answered the questions of the three students. VP Neas agreed that this equipment should be put on a replacement life cycle. Additionally, VP Neas is seeking leasing arrangements. The intent is also to put equity funding to good use, if, and when that becomes available. That is crucial to many IT needs.
A vote was called on the motion made by Jackson, 2nd by Frier to fund the Novell Server Replacement proposal in full ($21,134.04). 9 in favor, 1 no, 1 abstain.
There was a noted correction to the Jan, 22, 2009 minutes with regard to the Gartner motion. Gregory motioned, 2nd by Jackson, Correction noted, minutes of that meeting were unanimously accepted.
VP Neas asked the students on the committee the question, “What projects or services do you need from NDUS that would enhance your IT capability –whenever or wherever you might need it?”
Bonnie referred to how today's students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors primarily because they have grown up with being “digital natives” when it comes to technology. The digital language and IT electronic devices are items students have not had to “learn” to use—they’ve grown up with them as part of their daily lives. For the older generations, or “digital immigrants” they need to realize that today’s learners are different, and have to recognize the need to leverage technologies within the learning environment. What are those needed technologies that would make a difference to students? How can the Technology Fee Committee play a part in being entrepreneurial and advancing more innovative technologies for the campus? Bonnie suggested a new model of funding to investigate. Innovative projects brought forward from this committee might be able to seek outside funding sources – grants. Denton spoke on behalf of this opportunity and noted pros and cons to consider.
Gerst shared a short video clip to the committee members that reiterates the “digital” uniqueness in world today.
Review of By-Laws:
The committee discussed some revisions to Article III to clarify the four ex-officio “non-voting” members and appointment status.
To clarify, in Article VII, section I should read “Allocation of collected Technology Fee funds shall be as follows:”
Outlined in Article VII was a listing of percentages to be used in allocating the funds. VP Neas suggested while she really supports a percentage based allocation, she’d like time to evaluate the suggested distribution levels.
The students were presented with a copy of the FY09 Student Tech Fee Fund account of receipts and expenditures and fund balance as of 2/3/09 for review. This is what Stringer provides VP Neas each month that reflects how the money is being spent.
VP Neas asked the student representatives about the status of the BIN project. It’s been about a year now since the inception of this proposal, is it still valid as presented? Should some type of renewal letter be submitted to support the holding of funds in reserve for this project?