Members Present:
University Senate Representatives: J. Alvares, M. Heller

Faculty Representatives: C. Du [CSAM Faculty Rep.], A. Adarkar [CHSS Faculty Rep.], S. Shapiro [Library Faculty Rep.], R. Xing [SBUS Faculty Rep.]

Administrative Representatives (Academic Deans): AJ Kelton [CHSS Administrative Rep.], Hakeem Sanni [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

Guests:  J. Minier, P. Kahn, D. DeGennaro, H. (B.) Hancock

Absent: 
Michael Davidson [CEHS Faculty Rep.], A. Pemberton [SART Faculty Rep.], T. Devlin, Academic Coordinator of Education Computing Network, .], A. Rohman [Graduate School Administrative Rep.], M. Mallery [Library Administrative Rep.], D. Stevens [Undergraduate Student Rep], A. Mohiuddin [Graduate Student Rep.], V. Lilikas [Undergrad. Student Rep.],VACANT, Associate Director of Academic Technology, Earl Harris [SART Administrative Rep.]

Presiding: J. Alvares, Chair, A. Adarkar, Chair Pro Tem
Reporting: M. Heller
Distribution: ACC Web at <<http://frontpage.montclair.edu/acc>>
Convened: 3:10 p.m. [Library Special Collections Room]
Adjourned: 4: 55 p.m.

I. Call to Order:  The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m.

II. Minutes
Minutes for December 12, 2005 were approved as presented with one abstention.

III. Announcements

IV. Reports
A. Chair
Alvares stated that he was impressed by University Hall setting, including the intuitive control system.  He asked how can UN be used for other (non-teaching) functions?  After a brief discussion it was noted that Jennifer Spiegel currently is scheduling UN.  Wolfson pointed out that the large lecture halls have a one-touch recording feature. 

B. OIT
Kahn reported on her MSU presentation at EDUCAUSE Mid-Atlantic on Lecture123 where there were approximately 150 in attendance and which was very well received.  The new edition of Lecture123 has a podcasting feature. 
There was an inquiry on the impact on attendance rates when other ways to get content (such as Lecture123 presentation). Kahn replied that is a concern, and that a mandatory attendance policy is a way to deal with this.  A request for a future presentation on blended courses (once on, once off) was made including the strategies that can be employed to overcome particular situations like lower attendance rates. 

Alvares asked if any content system statistics were available.  Kahn replied that approximately 62% of faculty was using Blackboard that 100 have been trained on the content system and that eight faculty engaged in e-Portfolio projects which will increase the usage of the content system.  Kelton inquired for type of use by the 62% of faculty and Kahn replied that OIT does not have access to this data because it is not locally hosted.  (OIT has recently moved the test server to Montclair.)

Kahn mentioned that she and her staff are meeting with Library staff to show the e-Reserves function within Blackboard.  Heller praised the reserve system currently in use, but noted that the lack of clean copies (copies where there are no smudges and large black borders around the pages) leads to a waste of toner resources when printing these reserves.  Kahn agreed and also mentioned that it is important to consider if e-Reserves met ADA requirements.

Chapel noted that the University Hall move has been mostly successful and asked that if there are any outstanding issues, please alert him.  Chapel noted that the technology infrastructure coming along (i.e. CresNet and monitoring, risers, etc.) and that the intuitive user interface on the control systems seems to work.  He noted that the model for technology support services has changed with new kinks to be worked out. (There is a Solutions Center front desk when users exit the elevators on the fifth floor.  Users problems are then routed to the appropriate area and personnel inside the solution center.)  Chapel asked if is this a workable model and asked that users please advise him of potential improvements for a fall 2006 set of changes.  Other problems noted include faculty (especially adjuncts) without laptops.  Dr. Chapel stated that OIT has a potential for 6 loaner laptops (from the MPS), as well as maybe some local college laptop lending units.  Other inquiries incl
uded “can I swap my laptop for a new desktop?”  Chapel replied that it depends on where the faculty’s computer is in their life cycle, noted that the first lease cycle will end over the summer and that OIT is hoping to add 12 laptops to the OIT inventory.  He noted a new that there is a new challenge to define what constitutes the proper laptop software build (for use in UN).  Chapel noted that the choice to not equip podiums with desktops done by NAB steering committee.  Aditya asked about the problems for Mac users missing a DVI to VGA adapter?  Chapel looking to vendor to have a DVI second connection at each podium and noted that new longer phone cords will be added to the telephones.

Chapel noted that the new moniker is “MSU ID” rather than CWID per Dr. Pennington and that there were no major problems during the conversion.  OIT is working on conversion from social security numbers in HRS (Web for Faculty). 

Wolfson asked about the new cell tower by the football field and Chapel stated that it’s a T-Mobile leased tower.  Wolfson commented on the Rave Wireless facility as few seem to know its location and that there is a need more advertising and promotion of the program.  Chapel reported that RaveWireless is in Stone Hall but will eventually be located in SC.  He agreed that there is a need for more marketing along with a second vendor (clarification need second vendor for equipment on Nextel/Sprint network or a second network).

c.. LMS
Alvares (for Davidson) presented the LMS report.  Alvares was at a conference where other institutions reported success using other LMSs (i.e. Moodle).  At EDUCUASE Kelton saw Sakai and he suggests consideration of Sakai at MSU.  Kahn noted that the Moodle environment is more friendly.  Others noted that Sakai is under consideration at Rutgers.  Kahn reported that S. Hussein is using Moodle with support from P. Campbell.  Later this may be opened to others so that other Moodle features like the discussion boards and testing can be tested.

d. EDUCAUSE representation
Kelton reported that given MSU enrollment figures, that MSU is afforded greater representation including the addition of 3 participating subscriptions to EDUCAUSE Quarterly and EDUCAUSE Review and 4 subscribing only (EQ).  He noted that the distribution list goes from ACC to Chapel and that the distribution is for particular positions and not individuals.  Kelton reviewed how this is to be distributed and that there are 2 or 3 pending slots from the previous distribution to be determined due to resignations at MSU. 

V. Ongoing Business

A. Help Desk Survey. 
R. Salomon asked who were the respondents to OIT’s survey and that SBUS had followed up with its own internal survey (one item: do you call SBUS or Central OIT?).  He reported that 98% of respondents called SBUS not OIT (80 respondents).  Chapel noted anonymous respondents to the OIT help desk survey -- faculty, students, and staff – and thus OIT is unable to know.  He also noted that the help desk survey is done every spring and that this is the 2nd year.  Kelton noted that there are constituencies that typically are served centrally such as students, central administrative units and suggested that future iterations of the central OIT help desk survey indicate if the respondent is a faculty member, a student, a staff member, and their college or unit affiliation.  Chapel) suggested that a better approach might be a single source, coordinated survey rather than multiple surveys.  Sanni agreed that a single survey may also be preferable. 

Youn commented that in his opinion the questions and their presentation in the survey report only emphasized the central OIT help desk and not the contributions and efforts of the distributed areas.  Chapel stated that no one directly associated with OIT prepared the analysis.  Kelton agreed with Youn’s comments.  Chapel stated that he will re-read the report for perceived intent and that he had only distributed what was given to him (by Institutional Research).

Minier asked how did the instrument come about.  Chapel replied that the first iteration was through Remark and that he believes IR helped designed the instrument.  Minier suggested separate sections of the instrument depending on what category the respondent fits in. 

There was a discussion on how a new instrument could be done as a single survey item (through IR) and some other instructions for the development of the instrument including the time to complete a new survey and that distributed areas should be allowed access to the raw data.  Wolfson pointed out that maybe users do not know the difference between Help Desk and distributed technology. 

Youn motioned that a new subcommittee be created to work on a new instrument with participation by interested parties (OIT, Institutional Research, and tech coordinators).  Carried with one abstention.  Membership will be open to non-ACC members and will be chaired by Kelton.  Other membership to include Sanni, Zelick, S. Johnson or designee, and a member of the faculty who has a statistics background. 

B. ECAR Report.
Tabled

C. Lab control software
Chapel reported that OIT, without committing to purchase/implement this type of software, found that NetOpSchool was strongest application of those reviewed.  Heller asked that workstation integrity software and a re-imaging policy be future ACC items for the approximately 20 computer classrooms at MSU.

VI. New Business
A. Preliminaries of a discussion of the issue of outsourcing IT
Kelton reported that IT outsourcing is among the top 10 issues of a recent Gartner report and therefore thought it worthy of an ACC discussion.  Wolfson stated that AFT Local 1904’s position is that outsourcing not a good idea and bad for workers (benefits package.  Chapel stated that the only outsourcing by OIT is in areas that OIT is not staffed satisfactorily to handle (i.e. Library catalog system), and that when possible, outsourced items are brought back in house (the Library catalog system is being brought back in house).  Chapel continued that supplemental support (in areas like the Help Desk, high priority projects like computer rollouts, or facilities (Vistacomm for UN) are just in time resources and at times are outsourced whereas new services which required 7x24 staffing like the Blackboard test server are coming back in house especially with the UN data center facility.  When feasible, Chapel continued, it is preferable to use the outsourcing expense to pay for a third (overnight) shift.  He concluded that OIT will outsource what it thoroughly understands and/or what it might want to discontinue in the future (focus programming).