Members present:
Teshome Abebe, Alan Baharlou, Reed Benedict, Jim Bruehler, Mahmood Butt, Keith Cosentino, Hank Davis, Pat Fewell, Bill Gibbs, Dave Henard, John Henderson, Kevin Hussey, Les Hyder, James Johnson, Yunus Kathawala, Morgan Olsen, Dana Ringuette, Nackil Sung, Jeremy Wendel, Bill Witsman and Mary Durkin Wohlrabe.

Members absent:
Peter Hesterman, Liz Hitch, Allen Lanham and Brian Reid.

Visitors:
Jeff Cross, Lisa Dallas, Laurie Neese, Toni Smith and Tim Zgonina.

Approval of minutes
Morgan Olsen opened the meeting in the BOG Room of Booth Library at 2 p.m. Olsen stated that there was one correction pointed out to him in the minutes of the November 6, 1998, meeting of the committee. The correction is in appendix O, relating to memberships and titles. The title of Bill Witsman was incorrect. The correct title should read Director of Information, Systems and Services. Hank Davis noted the name Jeff Cross did not appear on the listing of members. Olsen stated that Cross is not a member and his name should appear under visitors. With both corrections submitted, the minutes were approved unanimously.

Discussion items

1. Taskforce Reviewing the Evaluation Criteria for Student Technology Fee Applications

At the November 6, 1998, meeting of the committee, Chairman Teshome Abebe appointed a taskforce of Hank Davis, Pat Fewell, Dana Ringuette and Keith Cosentino to review and discuss Student Technology Fee (STF) criteria and emerging needs. Pat Fewell distributed a draft of their proposal to all committee members. Olsen asked Dana Ringuette to report the sub-committee's proposals.

Ringuette discussed their proposals starting with the evaluation criteria. The sub-committee added the first clause or bullet, which in effect produced a revision or clarification of bulleted item number five of the original document pertaining to costs relative to available resources. The second and third bulleted items, degree of direct impact and number of students to be affected, were retained from the existing document. The fourth bullet is a truncated/revised version of the fourth bulleted item of the original document. Bulleted item number five is a revision of one of the existing criteria, projected effect of information technology on student learning and technology-literacy. The taskforce felt it spoke more directly to issues that needed to be responded to in the application. Bulleted item number six was retained from the existing document. Bullet seven is new and speaks to previous funding, and to the use of previous funding from the Computer Technology Fee. Ringuette stated that this section of the application process and schedule was revised due to the approval of the new application proposal schedule at the last ATAC meeting. What exists there are revisions in terms of deadlines and due dates, and they also tried to make the stages of the process more explicit. Ringuette discussed the proposals for the Funding Eligibility section of the Computer Technology Fee proposal process. The first sentence was revised to include the possibility of the installation of necessary network and electrical connections. The inclusion of installation of necessary connections was added to the first sentence rather than the second sentence. The sub-committee agreed that this made it more direct. Ringuette proposed that the revisions of this document would require revisions on the application. He stated that the revisions would be minimal to make both documents congruent. Ringuette then discussed the name of the title of this document. It's been called Student Technology Fee, Computer Technology Fee, and Student Computer Technology Fee, he stated. Alan Baharlou suggested a new title for this document. Olsen suggested the title of Instructional Technology Enhancement Proposal Process.

The committee discussed the proposals that were presented to them. Olsen clarified with Dave Henard that this would be Fiscal Year 2000 fee revenue that would apply to the Instructional Technology Enhancement Proposal Process. Henard explained that these would be the ones that they are about to review for this FY2000. Bill Witsman questioned the date of May 21, 1999. He felt that this date would be somewhat tentative. Pat Fewell replied that the sub-committee believed that a schedule is important. With a schedule, everyone would know when things would be implemented. Les Hyder stated his concern on the changing of the guidelines now and in the future and how this would affect the labs. John Henderson stated that this does not affect the lab proposal process, only the Instructional Enhancement in the classroom. Henderson stated that there are no changes in the lab proposal process. Jim Bruehler added that they have had labs apply for this money in the past and that the money was awarded almost every year. Olsen stated there are certain guidelines that the committee follows to award money to labs. Hyder was also concerned about the lab in McAfee, which will be up for replacement this year. All that space will not be available due to renovations of Booth Library. Olsen stated that when the space becomes available again, the lab would be re-established as if it had never left. If computers were to be replaced, they would be funded as if they had never left. Witsman added that it should be noted that those machines were up for replacement, so that in the future it would be understood that they would be funded for replacement, when the space is available once again for the lab. Fewell suggested that the deans put it in writing to be submitted to the chair and that it also be reflected in the minutes. Hyder discussed the need of support in student-funded labs such as software upgrades and personnel. Hyder wanted to know if there was a way to fund such things. Keith Cosentino reminded Hyder that he could always propose software upgrading along with other enhancement proposals. Reed Benedict stated that he would like to see the ATAC entertain the possibility of taking the $100,000 and dividing it up into different portions. He felt that with the different portions, the smaller proposals could possibly be funded and not keep the larger proposals from being funded. Cosentino reminded Benedict that, as a committee they all vote on the rankings of all proposals submitted. Hyder commented that the $100,000 does not begin to be enough to do everything that needs to be done. Hank Davis stated that he felt they had revisited this ground and "beaten it to death." He stated that a lot has changed in the past three years. It was his understanding that the students were willing to try to make an impact initially and then it was up to each department and/or deans to support it afterwards. Dave Henard agreed with him on this matter.

Reed Benedict questioned their accountability once these grants are given out. Is there a progress report on all proposals purchased? Benedict felt it is unusual to have this large amount of money going out with no progress report on anything. Ringuette stated that there have been regular progress reports to the committee. Fewell suggested that there be an additional document on assessment of the end product. The document in question is a review of the criteria for the proposal process only. Benedict stated that it should be mentioned that if someone applies for funding, there would be something more than just the proposal. Dave Henard stated that this should be a charge of this committee or for a sub-committee of this committee. He commented that the presentation given by Ringuette, of what they are doing with those facilities and what the instructional advantages are, is a good idea. He stated that this is a positive thing to be talking about and should be done.

Ringuette asked for clarification concerning the wording of the Student Computer Technology Fee document, which appears in three places. Olsen stated that it is a student fee and Computer Technology Fee is the term that appears on the student billing. Hyder added that "student" should be lower case since it is not a proper name. Ringuette also asked for clarification on Witsman's point of the application schedule. Witsman questioned the date of May 21, 1999. He felt that this date would be somewhat tentative. Ringuette suggested that the last sentence read as follows, "By May 21, 1999, awardees and ITS in consultation will determine a tentative schedule for implementation and purchase of equipment."

Olsen called for a motion for approval. Baharlou moved that they approve the proposal with the minor changes that were made. Davis seconded the motion. Olsen asked if there was any more discussion on the proposal. There was a motion to approve the proposal as amended. This was approved unanimously.

2. Proposal for Survey of Open Labs

John Henderson reported to the committee on the open lab surveys. Henderson distributed a draft survey to be filled out by students who use the open labs. Henderson stated that this is similar to the surveys used by other lab coordinators on campus. Henderson stated that he was open for suggestions on any of the questions on the survey. Olsen was pleased with the survey. He suggested that the lab staff encourage students to fill out lab surveys. By whom and how the surveys would be assessed concerned Witsman. He questioned who would collect all surveys. Henderson replied that surveys would be done in each lab with an end-of-the-month collection and reviewed by User Services. Hyder suggested that the lab staff be rated by their ability to answer questions and/or help with problems and that they be able to either deposit the survey in the suggestion box or use campus mail. Fewell suggested that they add a question as to how the lab is being used, such as homework, e-mail, WWW, and/or personal projects. Olsen suggested that Henderson collect, review, route to appropriate labs and present a report of findings to this committee. Olsen stated that suggestions be forwarded to Henderson.

3. Status of the University Housing Networking Project

Dave Henard reported to the committee on the networking project. Henard presented the EIU residence hall-cabling project. Henard stated that each room will be provisioned with one Category 5 voice cable per pillow, one Category 6 data cable per pillow (10 MBPS switched Ethernet) and one RG 6 video cable per room. The scope of the project includes 27 buildings and 12 apartment complexes with 3,194 signal outlets, 15,970 jacks and improved electrical and HVAC in wiring closets. The salient features include ATM backbone upgradeable to OC12 (622MBPS), 10 Base T switched Ethernet data ports, EIU-operated video headend with single mode 1 Ghz fiber for outside plant (note the educational potential for video services), potential for integrated communications services and a 24-hour help desk.

Henard then addressed when construction of the networking project would begin. Construction documents were to be completed by end of February 1999, with construction being phased over the next two summers (1999 and 2000). HVAC, electrical and cabling bidding is to end March 25, 1999, with the network electronics and video RFP process to end June 9, 1999, and be awarded to a vendor by July 19, 1999. The electronic and video installation is scheduled for summer 1999 and fall 2000. Henard explained the phasing of the residence hall cabling project. The primary reason for phasing is that the bond funds for the completion of the project are not available until fiscal year 2000, and the secondary reason is the impracticality of completing cabling in all 39 buildings during a single summer period. Also, the implementation of network installation for up to 6,000 students is best achieved by spreading this effort over two years. Henard stated that they could apply their learning experience from the first year to the second year. He also noted that the main campus backbone must be upgraded to OC-12 speeds (622MBPS) before the residence hall traffic can be accommodated. This task was to be accomplished during and following the 1998 Christmas break.

Henard reported on the terms of the funding sources. Phase 1 will be one-third of project 1998-1999 with estimated cost of $2.5 million. He stated that they were fortunate enough to receive a state infrastructure grant two years ago. With this grant, cash reserve has been built up, which will be used for a $500,000 down payment along with the student enhancement fee of $500,000. The additional $1,500,000 has been borrowed against the future cash flow in the (Eastel) account. This was financed for 12 years at a 4 1/2% rate with an annual payment of $164,692. The subtotal of phase one is $2.5 million. Phase 2, the last two-thirds of project 1999 and 2000, is going to cost $7.35 million - $9 million and will have to be funded by bonding or with the possibility of an increase in room rates.

Henard finished his presentation by stating that they would be using student help with technicians supervising installation of the Ethernet cards. This would be a good training experience for students to get inside the machines. Henard also mentioned the consultants, who are from Minneapolis, Minn., have been excellent to work with. They have brought in several different specialists and are doing an excellent job. The cost of the consultants is around $250,000.

4. Report of the ATAC Role and Planning Scope Taskforce

Jeff Cross began by thanking taskforce members Douglas Brandt, Bill Gibbs, Dave Henard, Nackil Sung and Jeremy Wendel for their diligent, thoughtful and thorough work. Cross distributed a packet of their proposed recommendations. The taskforce was to look at the role and planning scopes of the entire ATAC committee and make recommendations in that regard. The taskforce brought four recommendations before the committee. Three of the recommendations were for bylaw changes. Cross stated that the first recommendation would replace Article I in its entirety with the recommended ATAC purpose. The second recommendation would replace Article V, Paragraph A and its subparagraphs with the recommended ATAC functions. The third recommendation pertained to standing task groups. The taskforce recommended four subcommittees: Student Technology Fee, Technology Standards, Technology Strategy and Planning, and Academic Technology and Instructional Support. The working task groups or subcommittees would report to ATAC for review in a broader context and for the promulgation of recommendations consistent with ATAC Bylaws. The fourth recommendation would amend Article V, Paragraph C.1.a to provide for quarterly meetings. Cross referenced Article VII, Amendment of Bylaws, which stipulates that the bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting of the council by a two-thirds vote, provided the amendment has been submitted in writing at the previous regular meeting.

Baharlou was very pleased with the proposals. Teshome Abebe added that he was very pleased with what the committee was proposing. Fewell commented that she would rather not discuss this proposal until everyone had time to look over all proposals. Olsen stated that this would be discussed at the next meeting. Abebe stated the process would be that the committee would have a month to review the proposals. At the next meeting, they could adopt the recommendation.

5. Y2K Report

Bill Witsman discussed Y2K. He stated that it is real and critical to everyone. He explained that there is an important date coming up soon, April 9, 1999, which is Julian date 99099. This is an important date to watch and see what happens. Witsman stated that this is a business issue, not just a technical issue, and this campus has raised it up as high as it can. It is a business decision, and all sectors of campus are involved with Y2K. What ITS has been and is doing is looking at the IBM mainframe, which is the primary driver of administrative operations. They have assessed 37 major information systems on this campus. They have target dates for every one of them. They have been tested and know how many are Y2K compliant. They are also looking at system software in both the IBM mainframe and Unix environments of the main operating systems and on-line systems. Witsman stated that he had a list of over 120 different software products of this nature. At this point in time, Witsman verified that roughly 3/4 of them are Y2K compliant. Witsman stated that they are still replacing and upgrading software products. They have also gone to every one of those vendors and have gotten written Y2K statements on the status of that software. Witsman explained that they have treated the Unix environment the same way. Witsman stated that there are several parties involved with the Y2K compliant process. This is campuswide and everyone has some responsibility in this process. He explained that this affects all workstations and is the responsibility of each department to check for Y2K compliance.

Fewell questioned Witsman on how ITS would help departments that do not have technology personnel. Witsman explained that there is a Web page that will provide some assistance. Fewell questioned how departments are notified that they are responsible to check for Y2K compliance. Fewell also questioned how departments are checked that they are doing this. Olsen stated that management in individual areas is responsible for checking Y2K compliant. He went on to say that Witsman and Jeff Cooley, of his department, have been meeting with different departments providing information on Y2K compliance. They are in the process of educating people in departments, schools, colleges and support office areas. Olsen stated that all VP’s received a memo from President Jorns asking that everyone help with Y2K compliance in his or her area. Witsman commented he has sent memos to 30 departments and/or areas offering assistance with a reply from 1/3. Abebe voiced his concerns of shifting system responsibility to faculty. Olsen agreed with Abebe's concerns. The faculty’s role is to identify possible problems and provide information to be addressed. Olsen stated that this is the responsibility of management, namely directors and deans. Benedict asked if there was a time line in which this is going to happen. Henard explained some of the time lines. One big issue that is current: the old 386 and 286 equipment should be budgeted for replacement, and this would need to be done this Spring. He suggested this could be a way management could ease things. He stated that some of the work is to check software and levels of upgrade. Henard encouraged everyone to go to the Web page to seek current information. Olsen stated he was certain that this would be revisited.

6. Telecommunications Futures

Henard reported on the integrated communications environment. He distributed a handout to the committee. Henard explained to the committee that he was projecting at least three years into the future with this particular technology. He explained the vision of the integrated communications environment: the interconnection of telephony and computer- based elements into a cohesive network designed to transmit, switch and deliver information on demand to today’s information worker. What he was proposing was a local PBX, which means a micro sized box in each building in the wiring closet powered by an un-interruptible power supply. Henard reported on the following hardware features: standards-based ATM and ATM interface to PBX and switched network ports, UPS power to closet electronics, voice instruments powered from the closet-contained local PBX, computer telephony integration (CTI) only where applications require it, 99.9+ availability for all components, all components SNMP manageable, separate voice, data, and video copper wire, inter-building voice and data over single multi-mode fiber and inter-building video over separate single mode fiber. Henard then explained the Network Management Software features: Integrated single look and feel for voice, data and video; standards-based including Network Management Forum (NMF), OMG, IETF and ITU; based upon defined policy, service level agreements and quality of service; includes all management functions including billing, cable inventory, fault & recovery, performance, provisioning, configuration, security, access control and authentication; generic API’s; Web based management; management data stored in a homogenous data base with access from a variety of authorized support staff including ITS staff and Instructional Support Specialists; and automated problem log paging for alerts that are selected via the policies of management. Henard also explained the staff support and economies features: Single help desk for voice, data and video; trained for the use of a single set of network management tools with voice mail and automated paging for problem management; cross trained for adds, drops, changes and troubleshooting all cable systems including coax, twisted pair, single mode fiber and multi-mode fiber; cross trained to troubleshoot video, voice and data electronics in this all-digital environment; maximum four hours time to repair any outage and 24 hour coverage; quoted savings of up to 45% for support costs through integration; improved personnel back-up via cross-training and relevant and current experiences for students employed to assist in this integrated environment. Henard asked for any comments from the committee.

Baharlou asked if this was a plan or vision. Henard answer that this is a vision. Henard explained this is something that needs to be planned. He went on to say that the University could be its own phone company and save money with this new technology. Henard suggested that EIU do nothing to slow this process. Olsen commented that the University is moving in the right direction with this new technology.

7. Other

Hank Davis suggested that the committee take time to look over the proposals that were presented by Jeff Cross on the committee's role and planning scope. He suggested that they could possibly convey to each other their thoughts of the proposal. Cross suggested that they could set up an list serve and e-mail correspondence to each other. Fewell offered the committee member list with all e-mail address to Henderson so that an account could be established.

John Henderson presented the committee with an up to-date account of all ATAC orders for FY99. Henderson added that Media Services has been of great help with the ordering of projectors and video carts. Henderson stated that the only lab request that has not been ordered is the English department lab, which requested not to be ordered until the first of April. Henderson added that Student Services labs would be ordered next week. Henderson stated that everyone was called, meetings were scheduled and everything went smoothly. Olsen thanked Henderson and his staff for a job well done.

Meeting adjourned at 4:07 p.m.

Submitted by Laurie Neese, recorder.