Information Technology Advisory Committee Meeting
February 9, 2004


Present: Wesley Morgan (Psychology), Faye Muly (OIT), Richard Strange (FWF), Mike McNeil (OIT), Joel Reeves (OIT), Clif Woods (Research Office), George Hoemann (Distance Ed), Bruce Delaney (OIT), Bill Britten (Library), Joan Heminway (Law), Lee Warren (GSS)

Absent with foreknowledge: Wes Hines (Nuclear Engineering), Misty Anderson (English), Bruce Ralston (Geography)

Next meeting: Monday, 15 march 2004, 3:30 8th floor boardroom, AHT

Announcements - anyone
Chat: Whitney noted that a chat was tried on Friday afternoon for those who did could not attend the Monday meeting and her own client was not able to manifest itself. Hines, Delaney, and Anderson were able to launch it. ITC staff are looking into the issue.

Guidelines document: the KAITSC document was presented to the group for comment. Whitney also noted that it would be sent out on the ITAC listserv. The document will be discussed at the next meeting on March 15.

Information coordination: Whitney reported that she has reported on ITAC activities to the research council, and has upcoming meetings with the senate executive committee and the instructional technology task force.
  1. Update - SSN Replacement Progress (Joel Reeves)
    A report regarding options for moving to a different identifier other than the ssn was presented to the administration (Mayhew) during the holidays. The report outlined a variety of options for this transition. Not unexpectedly, every option raised more questions to be answered. The SSN will still remain internally in administrative systems, because it in part is needed to be matched to documentation received from external systems (such as transcripts). There appears to be good progress in this area.

  2. Update - Security (Robert Ridenour)
    We were reminded to update operating systems. Damage from mydoom and other recent viruses could have been avoided if OSS were kept up to date.

  3. Update - Privacy Document (Joan Heminway)
    Heminway reported that discussion of privacy issues has begun, involving Catherine Mizell, Alice Woody, Ann Mayhew, Thomas Davies, Beauvais Lyons, and herself. The comments from Thomas Davies regarding the AUP from April 3, 2003 have been carefully considered. A key concern for the group continues to be the preservation of the content of faculty files and, in particular, their preservation in confidence absent due process. At this point the discussions are ongoing, and are at the conceptual level. Although there is no firm decision at this point whether a separate privacy document will be developed or whether the existing AUP will be revised, Heminway noted that the revised AUP document currently under discussion continues to incorporate privacy issues.

  4. Discussion "Suspension" of the faculty refresh program (Clif Woods)
    Woods described the origination of the faculty refresh program from the Research Council in 1999 as an effort to provide all faculty with reasonable computing desktop capabilities. In the first year, those with the least capable resources were upgraded, about a third of the faculty. In the subsequent 2 years, additional thirds of the faculty were upgraded.

    Last year, efforts were made to upgrade staff resources, in particular in light of IRIS. Also, faculty who received upgrades in the first wave were offered laptops and other upgrades.

    Concern for those who need high-end, extensive computing resources remains on the table. High-end computing resources have been purchased from Oak Ridge.

    Most important, the "suspension" of the faculty refresh program is only for one year. There appears to be a general satisfaction at this point with current computing resources. It has not been abandoned entirely. The administration simply did not have the data regarding the age of current machines and faculty needs to make a different decision.

    The objective of the program remains to provide basic computing resources at the desktop for faculty, with mobile resources as needed, and to find other resources for high-end computing.
  5. Discussion - VOIP colloquy from the 5th February (Julie Little)
    Little summarized the colloquy, and encouraged people to visit the ITC website to find out more about the colloquy and the evaluation process. Whitney and little suggested a timeline of:
         March 1: comments and feedback due on the evaluation criteria
         Month of March: open faculty focus group meetings; mapping of evaluation of tools to be evaluated
         Month of April: more mapping; development of recommendations to ITAC
         May 3: ITAC make recommendations to Faculty Senate

  6. ITC presentation on programs and services (Julie Little)
    Little reviewed the primary programs and services offered by ITC, particularly faculty and GTA grant programs. She debuted new brochures and newsletter issues.

  7. Other matters as needed
    None were presented.

Adjourned at 4:45 pm.

Gretchen Whitney

Senate Directory
Governing Documents
   Senate Bylaws
   Faculty Handbook
   Tenure Policy



Senate Home

To offer suggestions or comments about this web site, please click here.