Academic Computing Committee

Meeting Minutes

November 14, 2005

Members Present:

University Senate Representatives: J. Alvares, M. Heller

Faculty Representatives: Michael Davidson [CEHS Faculty Rep.]

Administrative Representatives (Academic Deans): M. Topic [CHSS Administrative Rep.], Hakeem Sanni [CEHS Administrative Rep.], Earl Harris [SART 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

Absent: 

M. Kasner [CSAM Faculty Rep.], A. Adarkar [CHSS Faculty Rep.], A. Pemberton [SART Faculty Rep.], S. Shapiro [Library Faculty Rep.], R. Xing [SBUS 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,

Presiding: J. Alvares, Chair

Reporting: M. Heller

Distribution: ACC Web at <<http://frontpage.montclair.edu/acc>>

Convened: 3:08 p.m. [Library Special Collections Room]

Adjourned: 4: 27 p.m.

I.            Call to Order : The meeting was called to order at 3:08 p.m. after introductions.  The ACC extends its deepest condolences to Mary Mallery following the loss of her father.

II.            Minutes.

            Corrections to the October 10, 2005 minutes were deferred to the December 12, 2005 meeting.

III.            Announcements.

IV.            Reports

            a.            Chair's Report

            The Chair had no formal report.  He called for future agenda suggestions from the ACC membership and guest.  He also noted that a report on EDUCAUSE might be provided at the December meeting by those that attended.

            b.            OIT

Dr. Chapel reported based on requests from the previous meeting.  The OIT report also included some advanced agenda items.  

HelpDesk Survey — Dr. Chapel apologized for the delay on the HelpDesk information as he needed to edit some of the open ended comments to preserve the anonymity of respondents. Dr. Chapel commented on the intent of the reports sent in advance of the meeting. (HelpDesk, ECAR-MSU, national ECAR).  In particular with respect to the HelpDesk, Dr. Chapel’s intent was to help other units as they develop their own (local) surveys so that OIT and distributed units surveys have common structure, terminology, and measurement goals.  Dr. Chapel also welcomes comments on the OIT HelpDesk instrument (and any other instruments to the extent that they can be modified). 

ECAR Research (EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research) – Dr. Chapel reported that despite all the different terminology used, about 12 months ago Dr. Cole attended a meeting at the University of Central Florida and that subsequently MSU participated last spring for the first time in the ECAR Student Use of Technology Study.  At this time only a national summary is  available (Kvavik Presentation).  If warranted, Dr. Chapel will be sharing with the ACC results on how our students perceive themselves.

As requested, Dr. Chapel made an inquiry to other CIOs on email account space provided to faculty, staff, and students.  Dr. Chapel reported that MSU is common to the norms on faculty & staff email quotas, but low on student email storage.  He noted that MSU provides students’ storage on NetDrive which is not common.  M. Heller asked Dr. Chapel if he could report on the maximum file attachment size.  Dr. Chapel reported that he had no data on maximum on attachment size but will report back on this in the future after seeking input on this from fellow Higher Ed. CIOs.

Dr. Chapel provided a response from OIT on lab access control and monitoring tools.  Considering all in fit and compatibility along with features the most promising application is NetOp School.  Dr. Chapel noted that this is not an endorsement to implement or purchase said software, but rather to help inform the process in the decision to include this type of software in teaching/learning labs, a process which would  might in the future and which should be driven by faculty needs.  He asked the ACC to get input from our respective constituencies toward this goal if appropriate.  R. Salomon and M. Topic recalled the history of this agenda item (AJ Kelton had been approached by faculty member who wanted to control computer use during class).  J. Youn asked if this was being implemented/mandated or not as he was looking at a hardware contract renewal for ComWeb.  Wolfson noted that he has always been against central mandates as not all solutions fit all needs. 

Dr. Chapel reported on an ongoing discussion at NASUALGC (National?Association for State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges) on VHS and VCRs including the state of this technology.   He noted that there is no policy to abandon VHS and VCR at MSU, but that the community needs to entertain a migration path away  from VHS VCRs.  Dr. Chapel received many inquiries to this item.  R. Salomon asked what is the replacement if an existing VCR is broken?  Is the replacement VHS, DVD, or a combination unit.  Dr. Chapel replied that OIT will ccontinue to replace VCRs as they remain available on market but recognizing the demise of VHS, he urges that the community begin a transition away from VHS.   Salomon noted that at last Technology Coordinator’s meeting there was discussion on the need for a central University support mechanism to obtain publisher permissions so that VHS content ban be transitioned to another format (i.e. DVD, Digital, etc.).  Dr. Chapel noted that MSU has not been in the business to do this and that in the near term is still supporting the VHS format. J. Youn asked what to do with instructional materials on video tape and asked if the Library already does some of this, noting that perhaps the Library could do this as a resource to University on issues of copyright and fair use.  J Alvares commented that beyond these permission and format considerations, why not make existing VHS content purely digital and with a database somewhere that listed content.  R Wolfson noted the new separate rack / room for University Hall that can handle these conversions (and can record from the classrooms), but that it will take time for faculty move beyond these formats that they’ve been comfortable with, especially since these formats are easily accessible and allow for impromptu use in class.  Dr. Chapel noted that VHS continues to be supported, but that the community needs to develop methods and strategies for video use in the future (including the move away from VHS).  R Salomon noted that Dr. Chapel’s comments were consistent with the outcome of the conversation at the technology coordinator's meeting.  

Dr. Chapel also reported on the CWID Project that remains on track for a 12/10 conversion.  OIT has received comments from 30 users/groups around campus where by the CWID conversion could possibly disable their respective operations (with 3rd party vendors).  OIT has been working with all on a plan to handle data translation needs.  Dr. Chapel noted that a second notice had been sent to all units via Management Council and that the project is 18 months in the offing with one month from completion.  M. Heller asked if the CWID would be embedded into the magnetic stripe on University ID cards, and, if so, when.  Dr. Chapel replied that when the POS One Card program is finalized it would include CWID.  He noted that this has gone back to bid as the there were deficiencies in the proposals received.  Alvares asked what is One Card, and noted that the University Senate’s Administrative Affairs Council has been talking about this, in particular is this a real solution to a real problem, or rather with this be an intrusion and have privacy issues.  Dr. Chapel replied that the Access Control portion is only one piece of One Card, but that access control (which was discussed at length by a committee chaired by Dean Prezant on perimeter access and what are building hours) will represent a major cultural shift. 

Dr. Chapel reported on an FCC rule related to wiretapping.  In particular it is provision of VoIP that has called the question and institutions of higher education are being considered service providers.  If enacted and if no successful challenges are mounted, higher education institutions will need to comply within 18 months. Remaining to be addressed is what constitutes a wiretap including the overly simple assumption that if government requires a wiretap, that is as simple as flipping a switch to route all traffic to the government before traversing our own LAN.  This topic also was discussed. R Wolfson noted that the novelty in the FCC rule is that the government wants to do wiretaps from off campus.  Dr. Chapel noted that missing is an operational definition of what is a wiretap.  Wolfson noted that estimates suggest that equipment overhauls for higher education may cost upwards of $20 billion.  M. Heller discussed the need for University provided public-key encryption.  Alvares noted that this is probably a larger issue to be taken up by the University Senate and Wolfson noted that if this becomes law there is nothing that can be done, but wondered if the ACC might want to endorse the lobbying efforts against this rule by NJEDge.Net (and Dr. Chapel noted other lobbying efforts).

P. Kahn had one additional OIT report item.  Specifically, in light of BlackCT (the proposed merger of BlackBoard and WebCT), there is a desire for the ACC (in conjunction with the permanent subcommittee of the ACC on Learning Management Systems) to work on establishing mechanisms for evaluation of other open source initiatives, in particular Sakai and Moodle OIT is developing a test environment for Moodle so that faculty can begin to check this alternative LMS as the University keeps evaluating open source initiatives on the shortlist of learning management systems.  Kahn noted that Ira Fuchs (Mellon Foundation) talked at length on this at NJEDge’s annual meeting.   OIT might also enlist future feedback from the ACC's support in further evaluation of open source alternatives (either as a replacement or in addition to our current LMS offering [Blackboard]). Alvares suggested that OIT develop a FAQ on Moodle including its features (and its features/functionality in comparison to Blackboard) to assist faculty before evaluating. 

Kahn replied that her work on reusable learning objects in Blackboard’s Content Management System ?                                                 Ed -- reusable objects, general agreement is good, we must articulate how this should be architected, performed -- business specification -- so that it can be useful to

PK -- FMP (film media group) -- chunks of video can be used -- Caldwell as streaming server but nice if we could share across the entire community

RW -- start to digitize and search -- faculty will see this

J Alvares asked about the new STRR (student technology resource room) and Kahn replied that the STRR was in its 2nd year operating under a model whereby students support students with their technology based projects.  Kahn listed of services, and equipment and noted that they will be loosing their Graduate Assistant and will need to replace the GA with a graduate student who would be paid to manage the STRR.  Alvares also asked about Training for the new classrooms in University Hall and Dr. Chapel replied that the University expected a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO), which would then allow for training on the 40-seat classrooms.  Alvares talked about the ECAR /HelpDesk surveys and what questions did the ACC have at this time.  He also asked for input on questions we might have regarding LMSs including are all LMS features being used or are LMSs just being used for simple web functions.  Dr. Chapel replied with respect to ECAR noting a pending agenda item (survey on student technology use) and suggested that the ACC instrument be consistent and similar to the ECAR instrument. 

J. Youn thanked Dr. Chapel for renewing JMP and noted that now licenses will expired during the summer and not mid-semester. 

-- spyware -- wording on the motion

c.            ACC LMS report -- M Davidson

Davidson reported that he had meet with Kahn, that the subcommittee was missing two voting members (one CSAM and one SART), and he issued a call to the CSAM/SART ACC members to get faculty members to do this.  Davidson noted that he had created a Bb community that includes new policies that need discussion.  Davidson noted there would be at least one face-to-face meeting, with possible email based subcommittee activity.

J. Youn asked for the ACC-LMS charter so that he could obtain a CSAM replacement.

VI.            New Business

E. Harris noted issues with cluttered desktops on computers and asked if there were any nightly cleanup routines.  Salomon suggested he look to DeepFreeze and Youn suggested this is better discussed at the Tech Coordinators level.