Minutes of Meeting, 2/9/98
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: Mr. Roy Davis, Mr. Eddie Horton, Mr. Chris Gresham, Ms. Yvonne Alost (for Dr. Alvin Brossette)
The meeting commenced at 10:42 a.m. with the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting.
Dr. Scheffler disseminated the completed technology plans from individual Colleges/Units to ITAC members for their review. Some Colleges/Units have yet to complete their plans which must be in place before a Unit submits any requests for student technology fees. Dr. Scheffler also distributed two student tech fee proposals that he had received and photocopied. He said that he will distribute all others that come in this week at the next meeting. All requests are due this Friday, February 13, the last day of the fifth week of classes. This spring, he stated, may be the last opportunity to submit proposals until next fall since the amount of money collected from tech fees this summer will be very unpredictable on account of the four 3-week sessions. Once all proposals are turned in this spring, the ITAC will begin the evaluation process which should take no longer than three weeks, according to proposal guidelines.
Dr. Scheffler and Dr. Bechtel then discussed whether a proposal or plan had been submitted from the College of Business. Dr. Scheffler said that the College submitted a technology plan but no Business faculty or staff have submitted proposals. The Leesville and Shreveport Campuses each submitted a plan but CENLA has not. Ms. Zulick stated that they would consider the need for a plan at CENLA.
Dr. Scheffler gave the Council an update on the on-going technology fee audit. One minor problem (an journal entry) was identified on the audit but not considered a major audit finding. On the whole, the auditors find that we are doing well with management of the fees. The auditors will continue to look at all tech fee purchases to ensure that the fees are used to serve students.
Steve Reid distributed a staff Internet policy for review by ITAC members. The policy pertains to how the Internet can and cannot be used by University staff during working hours. The policy should be in place by the beginning of next month when the auditors return to campus. Mr. Reid requested that ITAC members take the policy seriously and submit comments to him by the next meeting. He stated that policies for faculty and student use of the Internet will be written at a later time.
A discussion ensued regarding faculty and student policies and whether these would differ from staff policy. The consensus was that faculty and students may likely need to surf and search the Web for research and course work. Dr. Scheffler pointed out that the ITAC’s task is not to determine exactly what type of sites faculty, staff, and students can or cannot access. At this time, we need to make clear via the staff policy that the Internet may only be used by staff during working hours for University-related tasks. Dr. Scheffler asked that ITAC members point out the major flaws in the draft staff policy and get this policy in place before worrying about faculty or student policies.
Steve Reid proceeded to give an update on campus network access, a universal concern due to the sporadic and unreliable access of the past two weeks. Mr. Reid said that he hopes to put in a student tech fee funding request to replace the current system. He inquired whether the ITAC thought that this was something that should and could be done with student tech fees. The new system he proposes will provide e-mail, WWW, news, an Web development tools. He has looked at two solutions thus far: a Unix system Alpha server from DEC ($60-70K) and an NT server ($40-50K).
Ms. Cebrowski raised her hand immediately to state that access should be the number one priority at this time and that there is no reason to build new labs if students cannot access any resources from them. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Reid to explain the current problem with the Alpha system. Mr. Reid invited all Council members to the Computer Center to see the poor condition of the equipment. Ms. Thomas, who is under considerable pressure from students who are frustrated by the lack of access, asked how long it would take to implement a new system. Mr. Reid replied that access for the new system would be immediate but that migration of all accounts would take time.
Dr. Bechtel asked if the new system will be dedicated solely to student usage. Mr. Reid said yes, with the exception of dial-up users (all dial-up users, whether faculty, staff, or student will use the new system). The new NT network now being installed by Academic Computing will be used for faculty and staff accounts plus student web-based registration and other administrative functions.
Dr. Scheffler said that before the approval any new expenditures, the Computer Center will need to clearly define the problem and the solution. Council members agreed that this information is a critical part of any proposal submitted to ITAC. The group then discussed whether the Computer Center should go for the least expensive solution but most agreed that we should plan for the future and get the most reliable, cost-efficient equipment that we can. Ms. Thomas asked what she can tell the students who need but cannot get access in the meantime. (Note that many students now take courses over the Internet and depend on access to complete course work and communicate with faculty). Mr. Reid said that he wants to get NSU out of the ISP (Internet Service Provider) business but has kept this service to demonstrate use of the technology fees. It was pointed out by several members of the Council, however, that the lack of access does not affect only off-campus students who use NSU as an ISP. Access has been sporadic at best from student labs and faculty machines on campus. Mr. Reid said that current problems are on account of the LaNet connection (which LSU is looking at) and the campus DNS server.
Dr. Scheffler reiterated that we need a detailed explanation of the problem and solution and that we need to find the most cost-effective remedy. He will ask the auditors if students tech fee money can be spent on a new system such as that described by Mr. Reid since it is not solely student-related. He agreed that it is not a question of whether we need a solution but which solution we will implement. He added that there is about $200,000 of student technology fee money available right now.
Mr. Reid said that the Computer Center would not implement the new solution until summer and that it would be fully in place by the fall semester. Mr. Gillis asked Mr. Reid to explain what kind of web development tools he wished to provide to students. He added that most students need only an editor such as FrontPage or PageMill and the ability to ftp their completed pages to the server. Mr. Reid responded that we need to offer students tools for CGI and Perl scripting. After some debate about specific tools (using technical terms that most ITAC members do not care to understand), it was decided that Mr. Gillis and Mr. Reid would get together at a later time to discuss web development needs of students.
The final agenda item of the day was the mission statement of the ITAC, prepared by a committee led by Dr. Ross. Dr. Ross distributed the mission statement for members to read and review. Dr. Bechtel asked for clarification of several parts of the mission statement. Following discussion, two changes were suggested. Dr. Scheffler asked all ITAC members to remember that the ITAC mission goes beyond the student tech fees and that the mission statement should reflect this. Ms. Thomas then moved to accept the mission statement with the changes. Dr. Bechtel seconded the motion which was passed by the Council. The new mission statement will be added to the ITAC homepage shortly.
Dr. Scheffler suggested that the Council meet next Monday in order to receive all proposal requests and begin the evaluation process. The ITAC will meet at 10:30, February 16, in Kyser 429.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:36.
Respectfully submitted,
Cate Cebrowski, Secretary-Webmaster, Information Technology Advisory Council
Attachment:
1) Mission Statement of the Information Technology Advisory Council (final)
Return to ITAC Homepage