Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee Minutes

26 November 2003.

Approved 3 March 2004

Faculty Present: Dennis Henry—Chair and AOC, Deborah Downs-Miers—Secretary and Humanities, Jonathan Smith—Natural Science and Mathematics, David Koppenhaver—Education, Scott Moore—Fine Arts. Faculty Absent/Excused: Tim Peterson—Social Science.

Ex Officio Present: John Mosbo—Dean of Faculty, Mark Braun—Associate Dean, Bruce

Aarsvold—Information Technology, Dan Mollner—Library, Sarah Daniels—Administrative Information Systems.

Ex Officio Absent: JoEllen Schulz—Telecommunications

The committee convened Wednesday 26 November at 330 in Olin 319. Before the Chair called the meeting to order, Dean Mosbo read the language in the Faculty Manual governing this committee.

Upon finishing the reading, he declared that because of the Chair’s efforts to obtain particular budget information the Chair had acted in an unprofessional and insubordinate manner and demanded his resignation because of the Chair’s efforts to obtain particular budget information. The Chair refused to resign. The Dean, while about to leave the room, declared that he then would have no confidence in this committee. The Chair made every effort to explain the confusion and miscommunication involved, centering on the fact that the only budget in question was the IIAC budget, which this committee is charged with overseeing. Other committee members attempted to help clarify the

situation, based on history of the committee, its charge, and changes in the Manual language. Dan Mollner explained that the committee has not been able to be clear about how monies “left over” has been spent after hardware requests have been made because we have not been privy to invoices, etc. This is an issue for the committee because we are charged with advising as to such expenditures and there are always requests that we cannot fund from the budget, but there also seem to be instances of additional requests being funded later. Conversation continued about previous concerns about lack of budget detail. Eventually and ultimately, the Dean retracted the demand for the Chair’s resignation. He also suggested that we might wish at some point/meeting to excuse ex officio members in order for faculty to discuss the perceptions of the committee members in regard to the budget and other issues.

The Chair returned to the normal agenda. Next meeting set for 7 January at 330.

Minutes of 1 October and 30 October were approved as corrected after Bruce queried Item 2 on 30 Oct minutes re which years of budget gets charged. Dennis’s concern is that IIAC be in the loop as to who receivers what as per recommendations the committee makes in the Spring of the year. The Dean tried to explain Dennis’s concern : Bruce buys for inventory purposes, so needs can be met on an at-need basis (this in addition to committee recommendations). Dennis will circulate corrected language.

Review of Request Form Changes—Department Requests due Friday 9 January. Bruce wants the date to be earlier for requests to reach IIAC. 31 December is the date. Bruce needs to be able to inform those working on the College Budget of the total dollar amount of the requests. Changes to the revised form were proposed . Bruce will revise and circulate via email. With this promise, the committee adopted the changes by unanimous approval.

Technology Plan

Faculty Divisional Representatives reported their Divisions’ responses to request for each Department to articulate its needs and priorities for technological support. These reports are on file and will have been submitted as well to the Technology Long-Term Planning Committee, which consists of the Technology Directors and Mark Braun. As reported in the committee’s written report in the Faculty Meeting packet for the meeting of 10 December, a few items and themes persistently arose, creating an obvious pattern. These include a wish for more portability (acquisition of laptops), “smart” classrooms, and tech personnel assigned to BUILDINGS. Braun reiterated that the process for making the 3-5 year strategic plan is very broad, as there are several constituencies to be consulted and accommodated. David raised the question of whether software is a valid request. Bruce welcomed requests from Science buildings for wireless overlays.

David raised a pedagogical and credit issue: he says it takes more time to teach with technology so wonders if this should be reflected in the amount of credit earned.

Budget Issues

Several questions relating to budget and funding of various technology needs were raised, such as the varied and somewhat inconsistent handling of budgeting for software, how much money goes to student labs and how is that funded, etc. Braun stated he feels advisory committees should not be involved in specific dollar recommendations; rather, should merely indicate what needs more, what needs less. Dennis feels precise dollar amounts are percentages are necessary in order to make good and fair, informed recommendations. He also stated that budget details to a degree are useful, as would be knowing about our fiscal resources, such as what is the total dollar amount spent by the

College on Technology, in addition to the specific hardware requisition/acquisition it is the charge of IIAC to oversee.

Aarsvold said he can provide the figures for how much of the total goes to technology. The breakdown for what goes to technology is 2.7% of the overall budget. He added that “it is hard, however, to say what is spent on what in a specific year because ‘it’ is cyclical.” The Chair added that we need to know how much is spent on smartening classrooms, etc, especially as the Registrar’s line for classrooms has disappeared.

The Dean commended Braun for initiating this Strategic Plan process.

Because of the late hour and the need for many to leave, the meeting was adjourned at 6:43.30, without finishing the entire agenda.