CERRITOS
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
MINUTES
OF
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
FRIDAY
February 8, 2008
9:00-10:00
A.M. ROOM LC-62
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Lucinda Aborn, Lamont Freeman, Debra Moore,
John
McGinnis, Mario Morales, Wes Nance, Bernie Negrete, Patrick O’Donnell, Harry
Riegert, Lee Krichmar, Lamar Mills.
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Dean Mellas, Bernice Watson
The meeting of February 8, 2008 was brought to order at 9:05 a.m.
Lee
introduced two new members of the Committee:
Lucinda Aborn, representing ACME and Lamar Mills, representing the
students.
MINUTES OF JANUARY
15, 2008
The
Minutes of January 15 were reviewed by members in attendance. There was one correction: John McGinnis noted
that in the last paragraph on page 2 the word “made” should be replaced with
the word “main” so that the sentence reads:
“John said he would like to use Library Automation as the main heading …...” It was moved by Bernie Negrete, and seconded
by John McGinnis, to approve the minutes as corrected. There was no further discussion. The minutes were approved with four
abstentions: Lucinda Aborn, Lamont
Freeman, Lamar Mills and Patrick O’Donnell.
OUTSTANDING IT
STANDARDS ISSUES
Lee explained that this agenda item is a place holder for discussion of any outstanding IT issues each meeting. She reported that the computer replacements on campus this fiscal year total about 500. She also informed the Committee that every year we try to update all the pricing just before we begin replacing large quantities of desktop computers and monitors so we can get the newest technology for the lowest price. Our current standards include:
John McGinnis asked if Information Technology
replaces projectors and or bulbs in Electronic classrooms and Lee informed him that projectors
are the Library’s responsibility. John
also asked whether flat screen panels in place of projectors would be his area
of responsibility. Lee responded that
because
projectors are Media Service's area of responsibility she believes the LCD would
be included as any other TV would be. However, if a LCD connects to a
computer and is used simply as a monitor (such as in One-Stop) then she feels
like Information Technology can take responsibility for it. Lee asked for feedback from John and the
committee and everyone seemed to agree at the distinction.
Bernie Negrete further commented that LCD's might not be a good idea as replacements for projectors and that it would depend on the kind and on the sizes, stating that 40”-50” range would not be good for a large classroom. When text is displayed, it is more advantageous to have the larger screen.
John
McGinnis said that bulbs for projectors are expensive ($100 to $1,000). Wes Nance commented that the flat panels also
require bulb replacement that is likewise costly. Lee said that some of the warranties for
LCD’s cover one replacement bulb. If we set a standard for LCD’s, we need to
consider the warranties and bulbs to receive as much coverage as possible.
Lee
asked Lucinda if there is anything from Assistive Technology that would benefit
from use of LCD rather than a projector.
Lucinda replied that when two monitors are used at the same time for two
different applications, this would come in to play, and she described such a
situation in the Board Room. Lee
responded that in the event of the remodel of the Board Room, each Board member
would have a 15” LCD in front of them.
They are considering sinking
the monitors down into the board table, with digital microphones and other
perhaps other types of technology added
in.
TECHNOLOGY
MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION ITEMS
Lee
summarized the following: Agenda Item
3a. (Review of IT Unit & Division Plans) is done; Agenda Item 3b. (Review of
Library and Distant Education Division) -- John McGinnis’ area, Library
automation, was distributed via Email. M.L. Bettino previously provided his Area Division
Plan. We are now continuing to review this
draft – Agenda Item 3c. (Review of Draft Outline Technology Master Plan).
Lee
reported that a review of the Accreditation Report (Agenda Item 3d) did not provide
anything new. She indicated she had
already included Standard 3C, which is where most of the IT related items are
located. At this
point we will continue to make the document more comprehensive.
Lee
suggested that we include some photographs of different items such as electronic classrooms,
labs, infrastructure, and requested
photographs from additional areas to include in the Master Plan.
Lucinda
asked how the Master Plan is updated from the Unit Plan. Lee responded that we took the IT Division
Plan (which encompasses the units for Help Desk, Infrastructure, and PeopleSoft) as a
starting point. From there, we included
the 05-08 Strategic Plan, the goals and priorities laid out on page 14. These are prioritized within the Area
Plan for Business Services, which is not yet complete.
Once complete, these should be included in the master plan too. Lee
stated that providing a 5-year plan for Information Technology is too difficult
because of the changing nature of this discipline. So what she is creating is a 3-year plan with
updates to be made at least every quarter. A new
strategic plan for 09 is also being started.
Once those goals are set, this would need to be rolled into the IT Master
Plan too.
Lucinda
asked how other areas, such as Capital Outlay, would impact IT (because of the dependency
on IT to implement), and inquired how these areas get incorporated into the
prioritization of the Master Plan? Lee
responded that she made the request in
Management Leadership Council
(MLC) to allow all managers to be able to review all of the Area Plans. An
online planning tool is in the process of being developed by IT for next year,
but because
the technology is not in place yet, the transparency, or the ability for all
managers to review all plans is not in place yet. The Area Plans might be published on the research
web for this year.
Based on Lucinda’s input, Lee said she would add an item to the agenda #3f: Review of the Area Plans as a Group. Then the committee could decide how they want to roll in the area prioritization into the Master Plan. Each time we meet Lee will bring an updated draft of the IT Master Plan to the IT Standards meeting for review. Lee said that after the master plan is closer to being done, Patricia will be asked to review for grammatical errors and spelling.
Lee also mentioned that Jo Ann has given positive feedback with the direction we are taking. John McGinnis asked to go over his sections
and Lee said she would email the document to him.
Lee’s intent is to publish on our Intranet once we get closer to a
finished document.
UPDATE FROM
FACULTY SENATE MEETING ON 02/05 WHERE TECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN DRAFT WAS SHARED
Lee
reported that through email she put a notice out to the committee to make sure there
were no objections to sharing the draft with Faculty Senate on Tuesday February 5. She reported that prior to that meeting, she
met with Brian Reece, Dean Mellas, Bernie Negrete, and Jack Wilson to discuss
what they would like added to the draft prior to her presentation, such as the areas of responsibility
between departments -- who is responsible for what (such as Media Services vs. Information
Technology), or within the IT Department and the Library (such as the helpdesk, for the
faculty/staff, and the student assistance through ASC). It is a good plan to try to specify within the
document the various areas of responsibility and how they relate to one another. Lee
reported that the version that went to Faculty Senate included screen shots
from the PeopleSoft upgrade (pp20-21), which could be expanded. The ASC will be doing the documentation for
the new Student Center, which is accessed
via MyCerritos, which will be
critical to student success in the summer.
STUDENT I.D.
LOOK-UP
Debra
asked if Student I.D. Look-up also works for faculty as well as for
students. This inquiry was affirmed by
Lee.
CONFIRMATION
OF COMMITTEE MEETING TIME/PLACE
Lee
asked for input on where/when to place the meeting. After a brief discussion, the consensus was
to keep the meeting the same as before.
Therefore, the next meeting will remain at March 14 at 9 a.m. in LC 62.
The
meeting was adjourned 9:45 a.m.