Fall Organizational Meeting & Distribution of Proposals
Technology Fee Advisory Committee
Meeting notes: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:30 – 3:30 p.m.
Hidatsa Room, Memorial Union
Members present: Student members: Kevin Black, Nick Cilz, Brian Frier, Paul Gunderson, Abram Jackson; Faculty /Staff members: Ann Denton, Jim Hammond, Gary Fisher; Ex-Officio members: Cathy Hanson, Jeff Gerst, Bonnie Neas
Members absent: Student members: Megan DeCock, Jacee Beehler; Faculty/Staff members: Michael Thrasher, Britt McAlister; Ex-Officio members: David Wittrock
Guests: Janet Stringer, IT Budget Coordinator
Bonnie and Jeff welcomed everyone the FY09-10 organizational meeting of the TFAC. Introductions were made. Cathy distributed a sheet with contact information and requested everyone review and update, and will post to the Web site.
Jeff talked about the upcoming Fall proposal solicitation process, indicating the deadline would be moved to Monday, Nov. 2, 2009. Once the action plans have been received he’ll post them to Blackboard. He reiterated that proposers should consult with ITS as plans are put together. Jeff had to excuse himself early for another commitment and turned the remainder of the meeting over to Bonnie who would share comments on the budget and listened to TFAC feedback for future discussions.
Bonnie requested we add a section to the By-Laws related to the handling of Proxy voting. She recommends we use the form University Senate uses. The form indicates the name of the proxy voter and which voting member they are substituting for. This would be appropriately recorded. The form will be linked on the Web site.
Bonnie provided an overview of the campus growth, general history of the Technology Fee, and its purpose for being established and where we are at today with the funding model.
She shared the fact that we didn’t have an IT budget for the start-up of Barry Hall, and thus there were some one-time expenditures that needed covered for IT equipment for clusters. In addition to about $900,000 from the University, IT covered $100,000 of remaining expenses from the Technology fee contingency funds. This investment equiped 12 new classrooms. The issue now facing us is, what we will do three years from now when the equipment needs to be refreshed? Ongoing discussions are needed to determine a solution. There is a Memorandum of Understanding with the College of Business that IT will support them and the equipment, but they will need to factor into their budget the 3-year replacement plan for IT equipment. IT has installed and supports three new clusters in Bison Block I and II, two in Bison Court and three on campus.
Janet distributed two documents, one showing an overall distribution of monies collected (and anticipated through 6-30-10) and the fund distribution plan, which is essentially the yearly Tech Fee budget, and the other breaks down the Fall 09 distribution plan. A reminder, the budget does not include any carry over money – it is strictly a yearly projected budget. For the Fall 09, the receipts for the tech fee collected are $1,027,450 and for spring estimates are for slightly under a million dollars. After the appropriate percent breakdowns as agreed upon in the ByLaws, the Technology Fee would have approximately $200K available for the Fall 09 funding cycle recommendations. Students pay $6.88 per credit hour or $82.56 for 12 credits. Waivers are subtracted out, and with our increase in students, this brought in nearly $50K more this year. There was some discussion about credit card fees and that these we’re charged back to the department. Approximately $5,400 to date relates to waivers, credit card fees.
Bonnie reported that The Novell Licensing of for clusters was paid for by year-end funds made available by fewer award totals this past fiscal year.. She further talked about our IT budget and referred to the 230K received from the University System at year end which was authorized to use for upgrading campus network.
Additional discussion related to where is our future with campus clusters? As we look at what the replacement cost might be for Barry Hall, $350K – 3 years from now, how will this be funded and is a “cluster” environment meeting the needs of the campus. Nick Cilz is leading an effort to evaluate cluster usage and need. Students feel many cluster facilities are being used mainly as print stations and to check e-mail. As the trend is that more students are coming to campus with their own laptops, a more plug and print environment is maybe what is needed. There is a need for more available outlets throughout campus for laptops .Bonnie mentioned IT folks have been investigating licensing virtual software. Is this something that we should pilot – a virtual cluster environment? What percentage of clusters is actually used in an instructional teaching situation? That needs to be evaluated as well.
Lastly, Bonnie has recommended that funding requests for ongoing IT equipment and support services be proposed as budgets only and that the lengthy narrative justification need not accompany these budget requests. This exception applies only to the standard ongoing IT support. These budgets would represent approximately $720,000 for Fall Semester. Funds would not be distributed until a report covering previous requested funding was submitted. Budget proposals would still be brought before the TFAC for review and questions. Any new projects from IT being considered requiring tech fee support will follow the standard proposal process.