Minutes of Meeting, 1/7/98
Attendance:
Ms. Joyce Barnes, Leesville SGA*; Dr. Terry Bechtel, Business*; Dr. Alvin Brossette, Continuing Education*; Ms. Cate Cebrowski, Watson Library; Dr. Betsy Cochran, Scholar’s College; Ms. Juanita Darby, Leesville Campus; Mr. Phillip Gillis, Academic Computing; Dr. Thomas Hanson, Graduate School; Mr. Thomas Hall, Science & Technology; Dr. Sally Hunt, Education; Mr. Creighton Owen, Leesville Campus; Ms. Susan Pierce, Nursing*; Mr. Steve Reid, Computer Center*; Dr. Garry Ross, Language and Communication; Mr. Lucas Shaw, Natchitoches SGA*; Dr. Anthony Scheffler, Chair, Academic Computing; Ms. Alicia Thomas, Natchitoches SGA*; Ms. LaTonja Thomas, Shreveport SGA*; Marsha Zulick, CENLA Campus
*Absent
Guests: Ms. Pati Threatt, Watson Library; Mr. Roy Davis, Academic Computing
The first meeting of the Spring 1998 semester commenced at 10:00 a.m.
Dr. Scheffler suggested that the Council make a decision on when to disseminate the Technology Fee proposal form. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether each proposal needed a sign-off from the Computer Center before, during, or after evaluation by the ITAC. Dr. Cochran suggested that proposals approved by the ITAC then pass through the Computer Center for approval. Dr. Hall replied that since a member of the Computer Center is on the ITAC a separate approval seems unnecessary. All were concerned that proposals be consistent with the Computer Center’s ability to support them. Dr. Cochran suggested that the Computer Center prepare a statement on what it can and cannot support in order to streamline the approval process. Dr. Scheffler reminded the Council at this time that proposals need not be extremely specific (i.e., need not state specific equipment needs) but instead should state generally what the proposal will accomplish. Following approval by the ITAC, the author of the proposal can then work with the Computer Center to determine exact needs. Dr. Cochran added that, in addition to Computer Center approval, all proposals must take into consideration facilities and wiring needs. Dr. Scheffler stated that Academic Computing will take the responsibility for answering questions about these issues and training people to prepare the forms.
At this time, Cate Cebrowski asked, somewhat rhetorically, if it is possible for the University to use the student tech fee money for support prior to buying new equipment which may or may not be supported. Dr. Scheffler responded by saying that Academic Computing is in the process of hiring someone to organize all campus labs and will probably also hire one more tech support person with student fees.
In regards to the proposals, however, the Council agreed that faculty/staff/students making proposals should discuss their projects with Computer Center and Facilities staff during development of their proposals (prior to submittal to ITAC). Dr. Ross then moved that the Council disseminate the application forms with a cover letter outlining the procedural items discussed above and points of contact. Dr. Hall seconded the motion which then passed. Dr. Ross will write the cover letter and give it to Dr. Scheffler.
Dr. Scheffler then asked that the Council resume discussion of the Library’s DEN proposal. Dr. Hall expressed concern that Phase 4 of the proposal (expansion of the current Internet lab) was unnecessary. The rest of the Council agreed, however, that a larger lab in the Library which is open in the evening and on weekends will benefit all students. Phillip Gillis suggested that the library consider current ethernet traffic and additional equipment needs prior to adding more computers to the University network. Specifically, he suggested that a new router may be needed in the library. Dr. Scheffler said that there will be money for such equipment from the tech fees. At this time, Dr. Hall asked for an update on the planned fiber network and Dr. Hanson said to expect it in about five years.
Dr. Scheffler said that the Library proposal and all other technology proposals must take security into consideration. The Student Union lab will use WebCast to monitor lab activities and other labs may want to consider this as well. Dr. Hanson then moved to approve funding of Phase 1 of the Library DEN proposal and hold approval of the other phases until completion of Phase 1. Dr. Ross seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Dr. Ross then directed the Council to the recommendations of the ITAC Membership Committee. He asked if the Council would approve all current recommendations excepting the mission statement itself. (It was decided at the meeting of 11/17/97 that the current mission statement is not adequate). The Council then reviewed the other recommendations. Ms. Zulick asked why there was no student representative from the CENLA campus on the ITAC. Dr. Scheffler responded that this was because there was no SGA at CENLA but that the ITAC could certainly allow for another student representative. Dr. Ross then made a motion that the ITAC membership be composed of those listed in the current recommendations plus one student from CENLA. The motion was passed with the amendment that the Chair of ITAC will decide on which committee the fifth student will serve (since there are only four committee which will vote on tech fee proposals).
Dr. Ross implored the Council for more input on the mission statement. Please send comments to him (ross@alpha.nsula.edu). Dr. Scheffler announced that the Teaching and Learning Round Table (TLTR), conceived by state officials and considered by the ITAC as a future separate entity, may not become reality. For the time being, he suggested, ITAC will serve the function of the TLTR.
Dr. Sue Weaver entered the meeting at this time and introduced Sandra Mixon, who will serve as the General College representative to the ITAC when the membership structure is approved by Dr. Burns.
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m. prior to the Council setting the time and date of the next meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Cate Cebrowski, Secretary-Webmaster, Information Technology Advisory Council
Attachment:
1) Recommendations of the ITAC membership committee.
Return to ITAC Homepage