Academic Computing Committee
Meeting Minutes
December 13, 2004
Members Present:
University Senate Representatives: J. Alvares, M.
Heller
Faculty Representatives: A. Adarkar [CHSS Faculty
Rep.], A. Koeller (CSAM), A. Pemberton [SART
Faculty Rep.], S. Shapiro [Library Faculty Rep.], R. Xing [SBUS Faculty Rep.]
Administrative Representatives (Academic Deans): A.J. Kelton
[CHSS Administrative Rep.], M. Mallery [Library Dean
Administrative Rep.], K. Tighe [CEHS Administrative
Rep.], R. Salomon [Proxy for Dean Alan Oppenheim], ),
J. Youn [CSAM Administrative Rep.]
Non-voting Members Present: E. Chapel, Associate Vice president for
Information Technology, R. Wolfson, Local 1904
Observer
Absent: M. Davidson [CEHS Faculty Rep.], K. O’Halloran
[Graduate School Administrative Rep], R. Julian Robinson [SART Administrative
Rep.], D. Stevens [Undergraduate Student Rep.], T. Devlin, Academic Coordinator
of Education Computing Network, VACANT, Associate Director of Information
Technology, Student Representatives: VACANT (undergraduate)
Guest: J. Minier
Presiding: J. Alvares, Chair
Reporting: M. Mallery, Secretary
Distribution: ACC Web at http://frontpage.montclair.edu/acc
Convened: 3:02 p.m. [Library Special Collections Room]
Adjourned: 5:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order: The meeting was
called to order at 3:02 p.m.
2. Minutes: Minutes for November 8
were approved with amendments.
3. Announcements: No announcements.
4. Reports
• Chair's Report: Adarkar
began the meeting by reading the report from Chair Alvares,
who joined the meeting at 3:30PM. Alvares
reported that the Faculty Senate accepted the report of the Blackboard Advisory
Group with one emendation made concerning the fact that the ACC has already
formed a committee to study and advise on Blackboard
and other learning systems. Right now, the members are: Jean Alvares, Roger Salomon, Michael Heller, Andreas Koeller and Susan Hussein. The Chair requests that
that the ACC set up an electronic discussion list for this committee, so that
preliminary discussions can begin.
The Faculty Senate also reviewed the ACC white paper on technology services to
persons with disabilities, and action is pending on the paper's
recommendations. Alvares will bring forth a motion at
the next Faculty meeting to accept the language of the paper.
• OIT Report: Chapel reported that the Blackboard Advisory Group is
meeting, and OIT is considering their recommendations.
OIT is working toward the last iteration of the inventory, and the distribution
of replacements will be done through the Tech. Coordinators. The
equipment for adjuncts and Graduate Assistants need to be addressed
separately. Koeller noted that his primary
machine is a Solaris workstation, and a laptop cannot replace this
machine. Chapel answered that this policy covers the needs of most
faculty. There will be exceptions, which will be addressed on a case-by-case
basis.
Chapel announced that two information sessions on the New Academic Building
(NAB) will be held on January 24, 2005 to acquaint members of the faculty with
the technology/audio-visual plans for the classrooms in the NAB. The
University's AV consultant will make a presentation and
answer questions about the equipment and systems to be installed. The presentation will focus on the large lecture halls
(100- and 200-seat) as well as the 30 and 40 seat classrooms. Chapel
encouraged all ACC members to attend because this will be the only chance to
have input on this important new facility.
Koeller asked about the schedule for netDrive implementation. Chapel answered that the
first rollout is being done right now with faculty. Students will be
included in the coming months. Koeller noted
that the instructors need to be trained in the uses of netDrive.
Many students use Blackboard for mass storage currently.
• Ad Hoc Committee Reports:
a) Mandatory MSU NetID Registration and
Use: Heller (Co-Chair) and Youn (Co-Chair) will
present the Committee's report at the February 7, 2005 ACC meeting.
b) Wireless Implementation at MSU: Pemberton (Chair) presented the
results of the "Survey on the Future Use of Wireless Technologies at
c) Student Technology Survey: Kelton
(Chair) will report at the next meeting.
d) EDUCAUSE Representation: Kelton
(Chair) reported that the Committee met and decided that the calendar year
would be best for updates on membership. The IPEDs
data from 2002 was the sources for the low EDUCAUSE FTE count. Chapel
noted that 11,000 is the current FTE, and MSU can
share this count with EDUCAUSE. Kelton
contacted President Cole's office, and they okayed the
current representation in EDUCAUSE. Kelton will
send emails to School heads to request updates on EDUCAUSE
representation. Both Senate ACC representatives and the Chair of the
Carnegie Committee can be added to EDUCAUSE representation when MSU gets the
extra 6 EDUCAUSE votes after the FTE is updated.
e) Restructuring Committee for ACC: Alvares
reported that four people volunteered for this Committee: Alvares,
Adarkar, Wolfson, and
Heller. The first meeting with be held on Dec. 14th at 1PM. Minier asked if only ACC members may participate. Kelton answered that anyone can attend who is
interested.
f) Learning Systems Subcommittee: Alvares
reported that, as the Senate requested, the Learning Systems
Committee is being constituted, and he asked Heller to set up a
listserv. It was noted that James Madison U. has a good model IT system,
and
5. Ongoing Business:
a. Faculty Computer Repair and Replacement Policy: Wolfson
reported that he sent out a draft of the policy to OIT staff and MSU faculty
and received comments. He submitted redlined comments and a new draft of
policy. ACC thanked Wolfson, Stacia
Zelick, and Alvares for
their work in drafting the policy.
Discussion began with Youn noting that responsibility
for damage to computers cannot be ascertained, so it shouldn't be part of the
policy. Adarkar suggested that MSU might want to
establish a Review Board to determine responsibility for damage. Youn asked if the colleges have funds for replacements that
are not under warranty. Chapel suggested that the question of who pays
for the damage is less important in terms of MSU costs than the cost of
people's time when they can't work because they don't have a
computer. He noted that it is better to have a policy for getting
the person a working computer. Also, he noted that the policy right now
has a lot of what-ifs and wherefores that could be taken out.
Tighe noted that the two main computer manufacturers
that MSU uses (IBM and Mac) have different warranties and specs on replacements
contingencies. Chapel answered that MSU gets a 36-month warranty for all
computers. Shapiro asked if this policy includes public computers in
libraries. Youn noted that CSAM secretaries'
machines are not covered by the lease cycle, so does that mean they are not
covered by this policy? Heller asked why does it mater how or why
equipment is acquired for it tobe repaired? OIT
has repair staff.
Chapel agreed with Heller and advised that the policy focus on practice not
exceptions. Most equipment is under warranty, and OIT staff is committed
to keeping this equipment in working order. If a computer is broken,
there is a way to get it fixed, and the University will provide a loaner
machine to allow the person to work. If there is clear evidence of misuse
or abuse of the machine, then the university administration will become
involved and address this behavior.
There was discussion about the timeliness of replacements. Chapel noted
that the timeframe on a replacement is not fixed, but a temporary loaner
machine can be given more quickly. Adarkar
recommended that "a Police Report must be filed" if the computer is
stolen, but there was some discussion about the time involved in filing Police
reports.
Kelton said he would work with Wolfson
to clean up the grammar, and he called the question. Adarkar
moved to accept the policy with amendments, and Youn
seconded. Wolfson invited ACC members to attend
the Faculty Senate meeting on Dec. 15th to support adoption of the policy.
Minier asked if the policy will be posted on OIT Web
site or by the Senate? Wolfson
answered that the policy will be published in the Senate Minutes, and Chapel
said that OIT will post on their Website as well.
6. New Business:
a. Addressing the uses of IM, email, and games
during classtime:
Should the university investigate and invest in software
installed in the labs to inhibit activities of the students, such as
access to the Internet during a lecture? (Deferred until next
meeting.)
7. Adjournment: The meeting was
adjourned at 5 PM.