rMay 16, 20072006-2007 College Technology Committee …...1 Minutes prepared by Cathy Kost Evergreen...

snaidu

Typewritten Text

September 20, 2006 October 4, 2006 October 18, 2006 May 16, 2007

snaidu

Typewritten Text

2006-2007 College Technology Committee Minutes

1

Minutes prepared by Cathy Kost

Evergreen Valley College

Campus Technology Committee

(Approved 10-4-06)

Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Present: Fred Delvey, David Eisenberg, Kuni Hay, Cathy Kost (Recorder), Steven Mentor,

Elvis Raby, Joel Stryker, Abdie Tabrizi

Absent: Rita De La Cerda, Nasreen Rahim

Guests: Sally Chumbley, Paul Klepac, ITSS

I. Preliminary Items:

A. Call to order: Meeting was called to order @ 3:35 p.m.

B. Adoption of Agenda

Additions/Deletions/Corrections - There was one addition to the agenda, which was then

adopted.

a. Items to be deferred – Approval of the minutes from the May 17, 2006 meeting

C. Approval of Minutes – The minutes from the May 17, 2006 meeting were not voted on in

Rita De La Cerda’s absence. Steven Mentor will post them in the Public Folders.

II. Information/Discussion Items:

A. Course Management Systems Update

The short version is that after much conversation, the faculty members at SJCC are

unhappy with WebCT. We are waiting on a report that will compare the top competitors

and open source course management systems, including Angel, Moodle, and Sakai. Both

colleges will look at everything and then forward the decision to the Board for approval.

Kuni reported that one of the problems was that the District never had WebCT as a budget

line item. Previously Mike Hill was able to find the $30,000 needed per year for WebCT,

but now that we want to expand, it needs to go to the executive committee, who will

present it to the Director of Fiscal Services to make course management system a budget

line item. The other problem is that whatever system we adopt has to be compatible with

Datatel. Forty different course management systems were looked at and they are trying to

figure out what price range is feasible. The research took longer than expected and we can

expect the report in early October. Kuni said we could get a copy of the report. It was

mentioned that Sakai is supported by the state office. David Eisenberg offered to set Sakai

up on his server so we can test drive it.

B. Questions for ITSS/Paul Klepac

Paul reported on the ITSS move feasibility study. It will cost approximately 1.5 – 2.0

million to move ITSS to the high tech building at SJCC. They were hoping to move by

July 15th

, 2007, but it will probably be by the following year.

Regarding VOIP assessment and wireless, the switches are old and slow and they need to

either buy new switches or switch to VOIP. They are also looking at the cost of going

wireless. Right now VOIP is in the Gullo II building, ITSS, the Gallery, and the Student

Services building. Steven voiced a concern that there is currently little feedback on the

quality of the product and the satisfaction of those using it. Reported problems currently

go directly to the vendor. We need an official evaluation before making decisions.

2


Kuni asked about Gmail. Paul said that one of the problems was that Kathleen Moberg,

who was a key person in the process with SJCC, went to DeAnza and now we have no

record of how to look at the SJCC experience to see how it worked. ITSS will continue to

have conversations with SJCC about it. One problem was that there were a lot of calls to

ITSS even though Google said they would be the support for Gmail. Unfortunately, the

SJCC logo was on the email, so that was where the bulk of the calls went. Another

problem was that students have different usernames and passwords for WebCT, Gmail, etc.

During the discussion that followed, Paul said there is no easy way to get the Gmail

addresses into Datatel, and if we did, did we want to overwrite the old email addresses?

Kuni suggested that we need to have more discussion about student impact and pros and

cons. It would be nice to be able to email students about open sections, etc. She will try to

bring something to the next meeting.

C. CTC and Accreditation

Kuni is in charge of the accreditation report and it is going quickly. The steering

committee has been working hard to gather information, have discussions, and generate a

draft. The commission wants to know what we have done since the last visit. Kuni passed

out copies of the draft of Recommendation 12 with highlighted sections on what they are

still working on and what they still need. Nancy Pawlyshyn is acting as main editor. Kuni

hopes that the third version will be posted on the web so everyone will get the link and

have an opportunity to give feedback. Paul did the District/ITSS part of the report. The

committee wants to see the connection between District, SJCC, and EVC. So far, the report

looks like we have addressed that. Notes from the exhibits are in LE218, the room

allocated for the accreditation. Michelle Lebleu-Burns will set up an electronic version and

a hard copy. Dorothy from Datatel will interview people from student services mostly on

October 3rd

and 4th

.

D. Public Folder Information on EVC CTC

Steven has the ability to put minutes and agendas up in the EVC CTC public folder and he

will put new documents there for the committee.

E. Larger Goals and Direction of CTC

Steve asked if we should investigate a larger charge for the committee. Our smaller charge

is finding funding for computers. Historically, though, the committee’s charge was how we

could best serve the students; the committee’s focus then became more restricted. Steve

said we should bring back some of these conversations. What do we want to be done in the

instructional area? What are the technical needs for the future master plan and tech plan?

We need to include data about TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). Outstanding problems are

conflicts between committees, and a perception that media services only serves certain

people. Media services has many charges: helping people make their courses better,

support the academic senate and faculty, etc. This committee should be looked on as a

resource group and an advisory group. We need to focus on the educational context rather

than just the fiscal and technical. Lastly, how can we help the divisions and departments?

We need to review our current technical plans and charter and timetables, and once we

have developed our three year plan put it in a public folder along with an executive

summary.

F. Clarifying Membership and Adding New Members

3


Each division needs to select members. We do want people to feel comfortable sitting in

on our meetings.

G. MacAfee Licenses – Abdie Tabrizi

There are 45 Mac computers on campus and the antivirus subscription has run out. $500.00

would renew it for another year. The college made the decision years ago not to buy any

more Macs, so when these last ones are gone, there won’t be any more. The committee

made the decision to renew the subscription.

Abdie also brought up the issue that the $600.00 limit per person to attend training or

conferences should not apply to the ITSS department if more money is needed for training.

The ITSS department should have priority for technology money because what they do and

learn affects the whole college.

III. Action Items:

IV. Other:

The meeting was adjourned @ 5:00 p.m.

1�

Minutes prepared by David Eisenberg



Approved 10-18-06

Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, October 4, 2006

Present: Jose Barraza, Sally Chumbley, Fred Delvey, David Eisenberg (Recorder),

Cathy Kost, Steven Mentor, Shashi Naidu, William Silver, Joel Stryker,

Abdie Tabrizi

Absent: Kuni Hay, Bev Lynch, Rita De La Cerda, Nasreen Rahim




Additions/Deletions/Corrections - There were two additions to the agenda, which was then

adopted.

a. Items to be deferred - None

C. Approval of Minutes – The September 20, 2006 minutes were approved with a few minor

changes.


A. Accreditation Update – Mentor

The accreditation report is online in draft form. Recommendation 12 affects us most, so Steve encouraged

us to take a look at it. It has material in addition to what Steve and Paul Klepac wrote; additions about the

state of Datatel, etc. were added from the accreditation report. We should all read through this and see

what should be there that we’re doing. Steve has concerns about a District technology committee that

operates in a parallel world to ours; two meetings times two a month is a lot. There may be another way to

do it. Abdie noted that LE218 is dedicated to the accreditation process; that’s where all the materials are.

If you’ve done SLOs, created rubrics, assessment tests, etc., this is the time to share those with

accreditation as evidence of the SLOs we have been working on. Send your data to your dean.

B. Course Management System Report - Mentor

CMT Taskforce Team conducted the research and compared course management systems and made a

recommendation for an executive committee that would vet those for a variety of criteria including

Datatel compatibility and costs. Heidi Kozlowski and Nasreen Rahim were charged with getting out the

recommendations to the campus, and, based on feedback, make a final recommendation to the board. The

executive committee will now make a recommendation. It appears that we will look only at two systems:

Angel and WebCT. Kuni put out a memo wondering if we could push this process ahead a month so that

faculty and staff could participate and test demos of each system in late October or early November and

relay that to the CMS team in late November or early December. The decision has to go to board,

possibly college council. This is all aimed at next year.

Bill Silver asked if there would be one system districtwide. Steve confirmed this, saying it’s cheaper to

have a larger number of users for one system. There was a question whether Angel was competitive with

WebCT in terms of Datatel compatibility. Steve noted that at the end of the current report, the team could

not recommend that we do or do not keep WebCT. Sakai and eCollege seemed significantly “under” in

terms of the criteria. The main criteria are money and Datatel compatibility, followed by what people

like. Steve’s nightmare is that we have a very small sample of faculty testing each system, with SJCC

choosing one and EVC choosing another, which will make the decision more difficult.

2�


Bill then asked if anyone was looking at the amount of work involved in rebuilding course if we go to

Angel? Part of that compatibility is the grading module, which is quite important. Steve said that course

migration was apparently not one of the main criteria that the team used. Sally noted that the college has a

huge investment in training. The report says that Vista and WebCT 6.0 are different enough from current

WebCT that there will be training cost involved, so it’s not a question of “large training cost” versus “zero

retraining cost.”

C. CTC Focus – Mentor

Steve met with President Coon, VP Kuni Hay, and Elaine Ortiz-Kristich from College Council about the

focus of CTC. The president wondered why we didn’t make any recommendations to him or College

Council. Steve said that our recommendations on technology purchases are what we traditionally forward

to the president. The perception of College Council is that we are not integrated into shared governance.

One result of the meeting is that Steve will give a report to the College Council in November.

Also discussed at the meeting was the need for the committee to put its materials into public folders so

that people can see our agendas and minutes. We also need to look into how we fit into shared

governance.

The biggest thing that came out of the meeting was that there are campus-wide issues where nobody is

taking lead on technology. Steve gave a list of items where we could be active, some immediate and

practical, others more futuristic and/or “blue sky.” The president asked if we were interested in being

unbundled from budget process of yearly technology requests. There are technical issues that require a

leadership role, but he didn’t understand why we are involved with dealing with issues such as whether

someone has a computer in her office or not. Steve got the impression that the president is suggesting that

if we move to these other issues and take lead in spam, gmail, etc., it would be easier if the committee was

not burdened by going through the technology requests and vetting them. Steve told CTC that he is of

two minds on this idea. If the committee gives away that piece and has the head of media services look at

such requests and make recommendations; why should we be attached to that? On the other hand, that’s

our charge. Without it, are we just a debating society, and do we lose some of the power the committee

has?

The president suggested that perhaps we could be a parallel group that looks at requests at the same time

that the budget committee does; we look at requests as last set of eyes. It was not clear how this process

would work, and Steve said he would ask the president to clarify his ideas.

Abdie said that if there’s representation from Media Services on budget committee, he can see that

happening; CTC can let it go. If there’s no Carl Fisher equivalent, then Abdie is not sure the budget

committee can differentiate what is technically good or not. Carl was in a position to make a lot of

recommendations; he knew who had what and who needed what. If we don’t have that level of input in

the budget committee, we can’t function that way. Currently there’s nobody from Media Services on the

budget committee.

Sally agreed with Abdie; there’s a lot of expertise on CTC. To just hand it over to people who’ve never

done it before would be difficult. Money isn’t the only thing we talk about; we do talk about the things

that Steve mentioned, so it’s not that different from what we’ve been doing.

David commented that we haven’t made recommendations on those non-money items. Steve noted that

the irony is that we have made a major recommendation, in letter from the committee and in person, for a

new hire in Media Services (apart from Carl’s position), and that this has been our number one

3�


recommendation for at least two years. But perhaps this was not seen as an official recommendation.

Abdie thought that the president might have expected Steve to go to College Council and make that

recommendation.

Bill Silver thought that separating the functions muddies the waters some; we should try the smallest

possible incremental change first, then add another increment if that doesn’t do it. Better communication

between CTC and College Council and budget might make the issue dissolve, so we should deal with it as

a little band-aid® rather than major surgery if possible. Steve commented that he went over the final report

of the consulting team. The irony is that there’s a ton of stuff they comment on, but how we choose

technologies and disburse funds is not something they perceive as “broken.” If it’s not broken, why

should we be fixing it? Steve thinks it’s a good faith request; he’d like us to take a role in many of these

things. CTC is positioned to take action on some of these things. If CTC didn’t have to do budget, it

would have time to pursue other issues.

Steve said that one thing CTC needs to recommend is a line item for Course Management Systems; so far,

the district hasn’t made it one. CTC can’t do that as a committee; the budget committee can. Abdie noted

that CMS expenses should be part of the district-wide Datatel expense. Steve’s concern is that if this sort

of decision is shunted to another group, some of this may get lost in the shuffle. Any year, our online

course offerings could go down if we don’t have the extra money.

Joe said that it makes sense to shift it over to the budget committee because it’s part of the budget process.

He perceives that the President is asking us to discuss the issues and make recommendations, not just to

him, but to the budget committee. We would present our solution and what it would cost, and ask if they

are willing to fund it. We would no longer see the “Susie needs a computer” requests, which would go to

budget committee through the deans.

David commented that if there’s no budgetary consequence to our recommendations, there’s no reason for

anyone to listen to them.

Sally noted that it seems like a lot of us are doing duplicate work. The budget committee already deals

with a lot of types of expenditures, many of which are more all-encompassing.

Steve then asked: let’s imagine this year we aren’t dealing with money at all. What should this committee

do with these things? Steve had a couple of casual conversations with people from Cisco and DO about

spam. What expertise does CTC bring to the issue? Does the committee say what we need to do? Does

CTC need to do research? For example, Language Arts blasted Steve about spam at their division

meeting. They’re frustrated with how much is coming through here. Some people had concerns about

filters filtering out too much. Does CTC take the ball on spam? Is that our job? Steve thinks that’s what

the president wants us to do. The problem is that if we have a conversation, we can start it, but it’s not

certain what we can do with it; we are interested amateurs, not experts.

Abdie responded that the CTC recommendation goes to district technology committee; from there it will

be acted upon.

Steve said that we need people with content expertise as well as user expertise. We can talk about what

the options are, and somehow get that to be a larger conversation. Right now, nobody is moving the

process. Steve sees that as being the job of this committee, and that deciding what our role is should be

moved to an action item. We are to think about what this will mean.

4�


Sally said that we might not be letting people know we’ve been addressing problems, and Joe agreed that

most people perceive us as only making money decisions. If we let it be known we’re addressing other

issues, people will come to us with technology issues. Fred asked if there was a way we could migrate in

that direction by making a small change. In the budget process, the cutoff point for expenditures that don’t

need approval is $500. If we can raise that amount, we can have more time to take on one or two issues

and see how that works for us. Steve noted that if we only look at requests above x number of dollars, we

have to coordinate with the people who take care of the smaller requests.

D. Listing priorities for CTC – Mentor

After a brief discussion, the list we came up with was:

Gmail

Spam

Wireless campus

Steve said that this should be moved to an action item; think what we want to prioritize for this coming

year and where we will put our energies.

E. CTC public folders - Mentor

Steve noted that only Rita de la Cerda can post minutes to public folders, and that she and Steve will put

the CTC agenda and minutes on public folders ASAP.

Bill Silver commented that you can’t access these outside of campus. However, Steve and Abdie and

David said that you can save the documents to a folder that is accessible outside the firewall, so it will be

possible to get to the information off-campus.

Steve will put College Council guidelines for agendas and minutes on the agenda for the next meeting.

F. Streaming Media Server – Tabrizi

Abdie said that we are supposed to be updating the license for the server. As of last Friday, Shashi Naidu

and John Thompson and Abdie got the system going, and they can now demonstrate it. EVC had licensing

for one year for software. Once we get going in terms of day-to-day usage of the system, we’ll have a lot

of questions and won’t be able to get answers without tech support. We probably need it, as it is complex

software with many settings. We need the support to get started using it a low level. After that, we won’t

need to renew support every year. The cost of renewing the license for hardware is $3375.00; for software

tech support, $1600. The grand total is $5038.96. John Thompson highly recommends we pay the money

for one year and use system and get the kinks out. Right now, tech support is very critical. The server can

do podcasting and a host of other techniques we could use to stream audio and video. Tech support is

pretty costly, but then again, it will provide us with the help we need to get the system fully functioning.

This is another example of approving money for things we need to serve our distance learning. If we took

it to budget committee, they might say “What do you mean?” as they are unaware of all the decisions and

process that led to acquiring the system.

Steve noted that the hardware arrived dead and had to be shipped back, so we lost several months of

usage. We should negotiate for a lower cost or extra time to be added to the support contract. Fred agreed

that we should ask that support be extended by the amount of time that the machine was broken. A

concern is that we might be asked: if we’ve had this system for a year without using it, why throw more

money after it? Abdie’s position is that to keep it useful, we need to spend more money, and we need to

5�


work hard for people to want to use it. Also, there are DSP issues. Shashi, Abdie and Fred have been

discussing closed captioning and money for it.

G. Gmail – Barraza

Joe recently worked with people at SJCC in a symposium and asked them how Gmail was working for

them. They don’t like it. The workload has been tremendous on their part. Although there’s some Gmail

tech support, ultimately as the college they are responsible for adding all the user accounts, deleting them,

changing passwords, etc. The SJCC people recommended if we have an option of using it, we don’t.

They’re in same boat we’re in; they have limited staff, and it’s been an administrative headache.

For example, you can’t add people in a block fashion. There was a problem with naming conventions for

user names, and it turns out that you have to delete all the thousands of people one name at a time because

of the change of naming conventions. Joe will talk to his counterparts at SJCC and get some hard facts on

these issues.

III. Action Items:

IV. Other:


� of 5�




(Approved 11-4-06)

Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Present: Sally Chumbley, Rita De La Cerda, Fred Delvey, David Eisenberg (Recorder),

Kuni Hay, Paul Klepac, Steven Mentor, Shashi Naidu, Nasreen Rahim,

John Thompson

Absent: Jose Barraza, Cathy Kost




Additions/Deletions/Corrections - Topics on the agenda were rearranged.

Items to be deferred - None

C. Approval of Minutes – The October 4, 2006 minutes were approved with a few minor

changes.


A. Welcoming back Nasreen Rahim– Mentor

Steve welcomed Nasreen back, and we all told her not to work too hard.

B. Course Management Systems Update - Hay

The CMS task force researched course management systems and issued a report; we also learned that the

district hasn ever had a line item for CMS in the budget. Mike Hill found money in the past to support it,

but there’s no clear budget item for CMS. The district will support CMS for distance learning, hybrid

courses, etc. The task force explained to the executive team that we need to identify the CMS that are

good for our faculty and Datatel compatible, and then put a price tag to it. The second part is to ask for it

to be supported. The executive team supported Angel and WebCT 6.0 for the campuses to explore, and

idicated they would support a CMS financially. Nasreen and Steve, and Heidi Koslowski at City, have

created a process on both campuses to explore which CMS might be better. The process has timelines and

includes bringing the products in and having faculty and ITSS go through a demo. A user survey is ready

and campus discussions are planned. The plan is to identify a product by December and no later than

January. The timeline allows Feb-May for training and preparation in time for actual migration.

Sally asked if they have considered which CMS are compatible with material from the various textbook

companies. Nasreen sent out an email requesting individuals to join a task force which would address any

issues regarding the CMS selection process. The companies will send out reps to demo their software and

send test shells that will be distributed. The task force will complete an evaluation form once both

softwares are tested. Sally hasn’t seen any e-packs for Angel from any textbook companies, though she

had from WebCT.

C. Discussion of the President’s suggestion for CTC to shift its charge away from

Technology purchases – Mentor

Steve summarized the committee’s charge. He thinks that “make recommendations regarding priorities

for the acquisition of technology” was what we talked about last meeting. Abdie could see how

transferring that charge would work well if someone on budget committee could take on the technical

aspects. Steve asked for discussion on the topic.

� of 5�


Kuni said that there’s a wealth and depth of expertise on technology here at CTC and it’s a great entity for

us to come to for discussion and advice. As we expand our direction, for example, in hybrid courses,

Kuni could come back to CTC with data and ask how we can improve on it. CTC could also suggest

research to be done in these areas. That’s a deeper and more meaningful way of using our expertise, Kuni

said. The group was so heavily focused on purchases that maybe the shift would make sense.

Kuni discussed some organizational changes. The search committee is conducting a final interview for

Media Services supervisor position. Not only does Media Services provide services, but also campus wide

inventory, and Kuni feels that Media Services should be the entity to keep up that data, and she’d like to

see a complete inventory and cost of ownership plans, with lists of what needs upgrades and the costs

(which faculty needs replacements, for example). That is something that we’re asking the supervisor of

Campus Technology Services to do, so that person will be monitoring equipment needs. Another aspect is

that Instructional Equipment money is a block grant from the state. Since last year, we have had a process

per division and department to solicit needs. Each division and department has asked faculty for needs.

The deans have a comprehensive Excel sheet with prioritization of needs for these entities, and they make

recommendations. Instructional equipment money went partly to CTC and partly to the divisions. Last

year we had $100K for the entire campus, and $38K came to CTC for distribution. Kuni would like to

cover all bases; anyone who wants technology should be able to come forward. Kuni suggests removing

the bullet point from the committee, and proposed an alternate process for recommending purchase of

instructional equipment. The district doesn’t have the budget or plan to upgrade all the computers we are

purchasing. The need is there, and so the vice chancellor of administrative services is working on that.

Kuni passed out a flow chart to illustrate her proposal that inserted a meeting of Deans and VPs as the

main recommending body for technology purchases; after that, these recommendations would go to

Budget, with CTC in parallel with Budget as a committee that would look at the recommendationsand

have input at that point.

Sally noted that any recommendation from CTC doesn’t go anywhere according to the process chart.

Steve said that the way the process works when we have money is that CTC sent requests to the deans and

divisions, and then CTC received prioritized requests. What concerned Steve is that historically, after

CTC received Division requests, and until we made recommendations, a variety of things happen. The

committee includes approving (or not) of computing that has come via other monies, such as grant

monies. Part of him thinks, “Great. We won’t have to do that any more.” But in his heart of hearts, he

doesn’t think it will help the campus right now. His fear is that if this goes to budget, nobody on budget is

representing Media Services. They might run into trouble when they try to figure out how to mix these

priorities and make decisions. This committee has knowledge of priorities, includes wide representation

and expertise in technology, and can balance things. Either we are in a position to make recommendations

or we aren’t and we shouldn’t be parallel to budget committee. In the past, Steve said, we were in box 5.

(see attached)

Kuni said that CTC won't be the one deciding that a particular person needs a new desktop computer, but

the dean and division requests should come here. CTC doesn’t have to do the tedious process from

scratch. Steve noted that, when we discuss the final piece we get from the deans, we have all the priorities

from all the divisions. Division A’s number one priority might be under Division B’s number three

priority. We have to look at the justification; sometimes there’s not enough in the committee’s opinion,

and we may ask for more information. Steve is worried that, if it goes from deans and VPs to Budget, and

they don’t have expertise to go between divisions, then the decisions may not be as good as possible.

� of 5�


David said that the flowchart shows CTC as a dead end. Kuni said that this was not the intention, and

added an arrow from CTC to College Council. Steve said that box 4 (see attached), where deans and VPs

get together to recommend priorities has not happened before. Last year there was no money, so all the

deans got together and agreed that there should be no requests. Steve thinks that step four is a good thing;

the deans could align their priorities one with another. Sally thinks that in the past, the Deans have gotten

together to talk about capital outlay (as it was called in the past), but technology requests went a separate

way. Steve thinks that historically, the reason was that people didn’t want to spend a lot of time making

technology decisions only to have Carl say, “that can’t happen.”

Kuni wanted to make sure step four was implemented so that first, as we do the master plan, we have to

be under the umbrella and we don’t have to be asked how we do technology decisions. In creating

priorities, this has to be happening within the context of our shared colleges’ goals, and she wants to be

sure the shared consciousness was there when making priorities. Second, student services were never part

of the process. Sometimes there was a little disconnect; the VTEA never got thoroughly into the student

services side. With this plan, by the time we bring things to the CTC, Kuni and Angelina or the deans can

come and make their “pitch” and explain their rationale.

Steve said that in the meetings, the question is where the funding will stop. In the past, since we had no

line item, we weren’t sure if we could fund something or not. Based on what was funded, we said we

could or couldn’t. Sometimes, if there was a giant request, it couldn't fit into the puzzle. As long as the

process allows there to be thoughtfulness about how the whole campus works as we fit the puzzle pieces

together, Steve is OK with it.

Steve said that Kuni would be getting together with the stakeholders (the deans); he’ll be interested in

seeing how it works out. CTC is disinterested; the people in step three will be competing for the same

money.

Kuni asked if we had ever gone to budget committee in the past. Steve said that we would look at all the

spreadsheets, look the requests over, ask for clarification, etc. Even if people missed deadlines, CTC

would work with them and help them through the process. Steve wants to make sure that, while we are

doing this, we are keeping the larger campus’s aims in mind. The bottom line was “what do the students

most need.” The representation is good here, DSP, counseling, etc. A part of Steve looks at step four, but

his intuition says it might not be as diverse a group as you want to be looking at the requests. Having said

that, Steve remarked, that when step four gives its recommendations to step five, if CTC’s

recommendations aren’t taken seriously, then we should be taken out of the process.

Kuni was taken aback by a little hesitance from CTC. If we were to make a recommendation, it would be

for the CTC to recommend carefully. We might ask deans to alter or augment a recommendation. CTC

will take that role. It won’t be a rubber stamp. Kuni says that Budget and Planning plays an important

role, and it was reasonable to include it. Kuni trusts CTC to review recommendations.

Sally said that Budget looks at everything; CTC was just one little item to them; the Budget committee

deals with a bigger picture.

Kuni said that CTC had great diversity, and that deans represent a large constituency of voices. Kuni

redrew the diagram, getting rid of Budget and Planning, and forwarding CTC recommendations to

College Council.

� of 5�


Steve said that it is very important for Media Services to be present at step four (Deans and VP

discussion). Kuni suggested adding Media Services representative to step four. Kuni doesn’t want us to

get stuck on the boxes, but she is on a roll with the flowcharts, and it’s helping the college gain clarity

about its processes.

Steve noted that adding a layer of process adds time to the process. It adds to bureaucracy.

Kuni asked in what way?

Steve replied that it adds to the steps needed, which means more meetings, which lengthens the time

frame.

Kuni said that anything we add has to be effective, systemic, and helpful. She is aware of the timelines

involved, and that’s her responsibility.

David noted that adding step four (Deans and Vps), if they do their job well, may cut down the amount of

work needed at step five (CTC).

Steve said that, presuming this is the way we go, then the responsibility for announcing the timelines to

make technology requests shifts to Kuni’s position.

Steve isn’t sure we have to change our charge at this moment. At some level, CTC does that [referred to

on the sheet of CTC's charge], but it’s not the only group that does that. He likes the conservativeness of

not changing it. There’s a different structure, but the activities are the same. We could change it to say

what the process is; we receive information from group A (Deans and VPs) and then make

recommendations to College Council.

Kuni said that, regarding license issues (which Steve brought up as an example of something step four

might not consider), we are trying to figure out who has responsibility for licensing at the site, school, and

district levels. For now, we aren’t touching it, but instructional equipment money doesn’t involve

licensing.

Steve would suggest that we table an action on changing our charge. CTC should consider what has been

discussed today, and wait. Next time, discuss if we will change it, how will we reword it.

Kuni asked how we feel about the process. David said that he is not opposed to Budget’s input at step

five. They should be in the process somewhere. Steve thinks that the arcana of the tech stuff would not

resonate with Budget, who sees technology as a single item. Steve says that by the time we get a request,

Budget has already allocated the money. Kuni confirmed that CTC will have the Excel spreadsheets; and

David rescinded his comment. Steve would like the spreadsheet as early in the process with as much

information as possible.

Kuni said that the conversations are already in progress, as the deans already have the spreadsheets. The

deans also have a deadline; Kuni will email the timeline to Steve.

D. Spam update and discussion – Mentor

Steve spoke with the President and Kuni and Elaine about focus for the year. Steve researched why we

don’t have spam filters. His understanding is that many people are frustrated with the lack of a filter, and

the frustration has increased. On the other side, ITSS is on board to do more stuff, but there’s reportedly

� of 5�


opposition from some at SJCC. We need to have a discussion where all stakeholders are represented, and

see what concerns are on both sides. We need to reach a compromise and take action.

E. CTC’s Focus for the year, outside of technology purchase Issues – Mentor [tabled to

next meeting]

F. Turnitin Discussion – Rahim

Many faculty think we should purchase this product. Language Arts want it. Steve has talked to people

who recommend that we not use the product. Other departments say they need a fix. Steve thinks we need

a campus-wide discussion, and that we bring in a representative. That can be done by CTC or by a

division.

III. Action Items:

A. Do we change our charge? [tabled]

IV. Other:


of 3




Draft

Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Present: Fred Delvey, David Eisenberg (Recorder), David Hendricks, Steven Mentor,

Elvis Raby, Nasreen Rahim, William Silver

Absent: Jose Barraza, Sally Chumbley, Rita De La Cerda, Kuni Hay, Paul Klepac,

Cathy Kost, Shashi Naidu, Sam Sakulsinghdusit, Joel Stryker,

Abdie Tabrizie, John Thompson




a. Additions/Deletions/Corrections -

Nasreen – Faculty Web Site

C. Approval of Minutes Approved as amended.


A. Student email

Update on presentation to College Council

Discussion with members of the College and stakeholders

This issue was not discussed due to meeting time limits.

B. Annual Report to the President and College Council

Steven is making a report to the President in May or June. Steven will send the CTC the brief report that

he made to the Council. In that report, he discussed that we had changed our charge, and were considering

our new role. In one role, we have oversight over infrastructure; in another, CTC deals with

educational/instructional technology. He also discussed issues that have come up briefly at CTC, such as

plagiarism. We should be thinking about the technology plan and the consultant’s report. Student email is

a key piece of our next year’s project. At the meeting, Steven found out that EVC was already using email

for retention purposes.

Bill said that the difference is that we don’t use email systematically as a whole college. The College

Council noted that nobody owns an email project.

C. Blackboard Update

Nasreen said that the foundation and Blackboard came to an agreement on pricing. Nasreen has worked

with Blackboard’s client manager, ITSS, and others. The client manager has promised that the technology

manager will have better communication with ITSS. We still have the contract until 20 July; we can get

the key for CE 6 any time we want. Blackboard explained that you license a product, not a version. As

soon as we have the server, we will get the license.

Nasreen has gotten the “go” from Tim O’Hare to allocate $29,200 ($14,600 per campus) for the license.

Paul Klepac noted that the servers arrived yesterday. The CE 4 and CE 6 servers will run in parallel; as

people get trained on the new technology they can transfer their courses over. The plan is to get

everything tested by the end of the first week of June. Faculty will have the Fall courses on the new

server.

of 3


D. CTC Issues for the Coming Summer/Fall

The President asked us to discuss a variety of things that would be good for us to do, then prioritize them.

This year, spam, student email, and WebCT were the main issues. Steven asked what we as a committee

should focus on.

Nasreen said it was time that we took ADA compliance more seriously, to start implementing it. She fears

that we aren’t really integrating ADA compliance. Steven asked for other suggestions. <<Crickets>>

Faculty web pages (Bill)

Update technology plan (Paul)

More emphasis on educational/instructional issues (Steven)

Promote good practices among faculty (Steven)

Evaluation process for online courses (Nasreen)

Support for Office 2007 (Paul)

Training for Office 2007 for faculty/staff (Bill)

E. Voice over IP Presentation by Wally Bryant

The system has been installed for a year.

ExtraTeam is an IT consulting group, a Cisco and Microsoft Partner. TDM (Time Division Multiplexer)

systems [our old system] is used in a PBX system to “slice up” a conversation. The market has moved

away from TDM to Voice over IP (VOIP). The Avaya system was stand alone with its own voicemail

server. We’re trying to go to a people-centric architecture, to integrate email with video conferencing and

the phone system. There are still technology hurdles and interoperability issues to get this vision to

fruition. Exchange 2007 has moved the bar forward with voice messaging. The key of IP telephony is that

a single number can let you be reached in a variety of places (email, pager, phone, etc.)

ExtraTeam installed a Cisco system here; they have 23% market share, more than 70% of the Fortune

500, IP and voice together.

A traditional PBX has a proprietary processing software, proprietary station connections for handsets, etc,

and trunk connections to AT&T. All of this is in one chassis. When you’re out of slots, you buy another

expansion chassis or PBX. A Cisco solution has the “call manager server” (also proprietary), which can

handle up to 500 people. You can have multiple, redundant call manager servers for failover. The

handsets are connected to an Ethernet LAN Swtich. The system is connected to AT&T via a voice-enabl

router or gateway. These resources can be in different places, and they can be scaled. We could add a

video bridge for video conferences; the capability is in the call manager server.

Bill asked if the “remote office” on a slide referred to working at home. With a broadband connection,

Wally’s house is on the corporate network. Software on a PC can do the VPN (Virtual Private Network)

to connect to the network.

Steven asked what assessment has been done of the pilot project, and what costs will be for upgrading

older buildings to VOIP. How do we go from here to “next year.” These are huge issues. Paul said that

Salas O’Brien did a study last year, comparing costs. We will have a five-year plan to phase in VOIP, and

it will be discussed at the board meeting in July.

of 3


Steven is worried that all of this is happening with little input from faculty and staff; he needs to know

how we are going to communicate this to the stakeholders.

F. Faculty Web Site

Nasreen said we were using FrontPage 2000; it hasn’t been touched for a while. After an update, we

couldn’t access it. Now Front Page 2003 is available, so starting next week, faculty can access their web

site. All web pages that used to be there are still there. Nasreen will send an email out on Monday letting

faculty know all of this. Front Page no longer comes with Office 2007; David commented that this was a

very good thing, as Front Page never generated web-standard compatible markup.

Bill asked if Nasreen could set up a “drop-in” time where faculty could come to her and she could assist

them in creating their web page. Nasreen’s goal is to open the TRC more hours to accommodate such

requests. Bill suggested putting up an area during PDD for faculty to update their websites.

G. Topic

A.

III. Action Items:

Determine what a quorum is (numerically).

IV. Other:

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

rMay 16, 20072006-2007 College Technology Committee …...1 Minutes prepared by Cathy Kost Evergreen...

Documents

Transcript of rMay 16, 20072006-2007 College Technology Committee …...1 Minutes prepared by Cathy Kost Evergreen...