ATAC Minutes 11-6-1998

Bill Witsman broke down the dollar amounts of EIU Student Technology Fee (STF) usage.

The first chart showed $192,062 of STFs spent in fiscal 1995, including $103,586 for instructional technology purchases, $40,046 for overhead and $48,430 for salaries. Nothing was spent for open labs. In fiscal 1996, $222,109 of STFs was spent, including $36,100 for open labs, $95,035 for instructional technology, $41,338 for overhead and $49,636 for salaries. In fiscal 1997, $288,900 was spent, including $148,626 for open labs, $37,015 for instructional technology, $48,287 for overhead and $54,972 for salaries. In fiscal 1998, $514,168 was spent, including $338,562 for open labs, $76,561 for instructional technology, $48,963 for overhead and $50,082 for salaries. Projected total expenditure for fiscal 1999 is $625,175, including $300,000 for open labs, $180,000 for instructional technology, $59,175 for overhead and $86,000 for salaries.

Dave Henard noted that in 1996, student government was approached and the STF was doubled from $10 to $20, accounting for the increase in fiscal 1997, with a follow-on addition of $5 the next year. He said the expenditure for overhead equates to maintenance costs for the labs and a 1 1/2 percent university service fee. Witsman noted that salaries include both civil service and student employees, about half and half most years. He said the fiscal 1998 figure was low because of difficulties in hiring and retaining staff. Henard added that in previous years, a decision was made by administration, without input from ATAC, to pay the salaries of three positions from this fee rather than appropriated funds. He noted that the percentage of overhead and salaries has decreased over the years.

In fiscal 1995, instructional technology accounted for 54 percent of expenditures of the STF, overhead 21 percent and salaries 25 percent. In fiscal 1996, open lab expenditures accounted for 16 percent, instructional technology 43 percent, overhead 19 percent and salaries 22 percent. In fiscal 1997, open labs were 51 percent, instructional technology 13 percent, overhead 17 percent and salaries 19 percent. In fiscal 1998, open labs were 66 percent, instructional technology 15 percent, overhead 10 percent and salaries 10 percent. Projected for fiscal 1999, open labs would be 48 percent, instructional technology 29 percent, overhead 9 percent and salaries 14 percent. He said the 1997 figure was higher because some computers installed in open labs in 1996 were paid for in 1997. Henard noted that this was done because computers were badly needed in Lumpkin Hall. Alan Baharlou questioned the lesser percentage of open lab expenditures between 1998 and 1999, and Witsman said this is accounted for by the greater expenditure for peripherals such as projection equipment in 1998 and that the number of computers to be purchased in 1999 will be down for the same reason.

Forty-two machines were bought in fiscal 1995, 103 in fiscal 1996, 24 in fiscal 1997, 172 in fiscal 1998 and 159 are projected to be purchased in fiscal 1999 for a total of 500. Fifty-eight units purchased for open labs in fiscal 1996 were partially paid for in fiscal 1997. Fewer units were purchased in fiscal 1999 because $100,000 was spend on non-workstation equipment. Baharlou asked if declining computer prices have allowed more units to be purchased. Morgan Olsen said prices have stayed about steady, but more computing power is available for the same price, which ranges from about $1,800 to $2,200 per computer. Witsman said that by the end of this year, about 500 machines will have been purchased, although some of the older ones already have been phased out and are no longer on campus.

Abebe noted that fund carryovers were about $8,000 in 1997, $134,000 in 1998 and will be $159,000 in 1999. He asked Henard to explain the reason for these carryovers. Henard said the student fee increased, interest accrued on the extra balances and that only so many machines could be ordered and installed at once. Also, the College of Sciences technology committee required roughly one year to choose a platform that would satisfy the various intended uses. These carryovers allow more flexibility in adding new machines and increase the funds available for instructional technology proposals. When student government was asked to raise its technology fee, it was told open lab machines would be on a four-year replacement cycle. A commitment was made to spend $200,000 or more to make this cycle work, and this commitment will be met. Abebe said it is essential that all know the carryover was not due to a lack of planning but was a reflection of the acquisition process.

Liz Halbert expressed concern that the expenditure of STFs for instructional technology purchases not detract from purchases for open labs in future budgeting. Olsen noted that ATAC student representative Keith Cosentino expressed that same concern earlier. He said ATAC wants to maintain its commitment to four-year recycling of open labs machines. That is the first priority, Henard added. Baharlou expressed his concern about the need for the university to provide computing power for more than e-mail, but also for modeling, analysis and work in students’ disciplines. He said he sees many computers being used for mere word processing. Rather than being discarded, older computers could be employed for such uses, he said. He questioned whether students should be reapproached and the recycling commitment redefined to utilize older computers for e-mail and word processing, and more powerful computers by students in their majors. Such a proposed revision should be presented to students, he said.

Halbert reiterated that she wants to make sure precedent is not set in taking open lab funding and applying it to instructional technology purposes unless the commitment is changed. If STFs are earmarked for open labs, they must stay there, she said. Baharlou said if $500,000 is spent on computers, more than e-mail and word processing capabilities must be provided.

Characteristics of an Open Lab

The following list of characteristics defines the nature of an open lab. All characteristics are equally significant.

An open lab is:

An unscheduled or infrequently scheduled facility containing general purpose microcomputers or workstations, printers, and a variety of popular software (at least word processing, spread sheet, and web software) that is available for general use by all students, regardless of discipline.

A facility available beyond the normal working hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The building, which houses the open lab, must be accessible and secure during the lab’s open hours. Open lab hours must be posted and available to all students.

A facility adequately staffed by the sponsoring unit with a technically competent lab supervisor and assistants, who can assist students with hardware and software available in the lab. The lab shall be adequately staffed during all hours that the lab is open. Adequate shall be interpreted to mean at least one assistant per 35 computers in an open lab. Additionally, one full time lab supervisor shall be available during normal working hours.

Funding will be based on the following minimum levels of open lab availability:

Level A – The lab shall be open to the student body a minimum of 60 hours Monday through Friday. In addition, the open hours shall include at least 8 hours during the weekend.

Level B – the lab shall be open to the student body a minimum of 30 hours per week.

Level C – the lab may be a teaching lab and may be open to the student body less than 30 hours per week. Some of the classes scheduled in the lab shall be in the core curriculum.

Note: Being classified as Level A, B, or C does not guarantee funding. The Academic Technology Advisory Committee will determine priorities for funding based upon these characteristics.

Approved 9/26/97

Type A labs are most frequently available and staffed, Type Bs are open somewhat fewer hours and Type Cs even less so and may be used at times by classes or for specific disciplines. Closed labs are instructional and discipline specific, while housing labs are located in housing complexes for use by residents.

There are 273 computers in Type A labs, 77 in Type Bs, 131 in Type Cs, 131 in closed labs and 96 in housing labs, according to a recent informal survey. Those numbers are subject to change. Before any open lab machines are replaced, their use will be analyzed, he said.

Abebe asked who monitors usage of labs and whether code are available as to which labs are used most. Witsman said each department monitors its own facilities. Abebe asked how decisions are made on the proportion of the various lab types. Witsman said these definitions were only recently put into use. Witsman also noted that housing labs are for campus residents only and are not financed by STFs. There are additional machines, Witsman said, such as 13 in Student Services that are specifically for e-mail— low-end machines beyond their lifecycles that are not maintained. Baharlou applauded this usage.

Witsman delineated the age in years of the microcomputers in Types A, B and C labs.

There are 70 machines less than a year old, 148 one year old, 125 two years old, two three years old, 53 four years old, 78 five years old and five six or more years old, all figures as of the end of this calendar year. He termed this a good situation. It is the university’s goal to replace those machines more than four years old, he reiterated.

Witsman next presented a chart in Figure 6 showing a cumulative 136 computers more than four years old as of the end of this year.

Most of these will be replaced in open labs this year. This same chart showed 481 computers more than a month old, 411 older than one year, 263 older than two years and 138 older than three years. Last year, he said, 120 machines were replaced.

He next showed a graph in Figure 7 showing aging of Type A, B and C lab microcomputers as of December 1999, assuming approximately 122 machines are replaced in fiscal 1999.

This showed 122 machines less than a year, old, 78 one year old, 148 two years old, 125 three years old and eight four years old or older. The university is on its way to achieving its four-year recycling goal, he said.

Witsman noted that last year, not much money was spent on replacing peripherals such as printers and scanners that are necessary for lab operation. He said that this year, the university will have funding for such purchases.

Finally, Witsman displayed a graph in Figure 8 showing 2,691 existing computers on campus.

This breaks down to 16 in the president’s offices, 71 in external relations, 1,291 in academic affairs, 277 in business affairs, 424 in student affairs and 612 in labs, among which are those purchased with STFs. An additional 50 will be added in 24-hour open labs by the end of this academic year. There will be about 530 machines in the A, B, and C type labs.

Morgan Olsen then spoke on the university-wide computer inventory, including faculty and staff machines, rather than just those purchased with STFs, saying that while STFs are important, they are not the only source of technology funding, nor should they be. Four or five years ago, he said, the university’s computer inventory was pitiful because in the early 1990s, the state of Illinois experienced major budget shortfalls at midyear. Since equipment budgets are among the few funds that have money left in them at that time of year, they were cut severely. As a result, the university found itself in the mid-1990s with a number of computers purchased in the late 1980s and very early 1990s and few newer ones. Since then the university has tried to build a reserve for computer purchases to avoid recurrences.

Olsen presented a chart in Figure 9 of computer purchases by fiscal year and funding source.

He said that in fiscal 1995, a total of $578K of microcomputers were purchased for the university from all funding sources. In 1996, $1,121K of machines were purchased, in 1997, $1,219K, and in 1998, $1,884K. In 1995, $156K of computers were purchased with appropriated funds, he said; last year, $680K from the same funding source. He said that a dedicated revenue stream is being put together for the university’s technology infrastructure. Olsen also noted that STFs paid for $73K of computers in 1995 and that in 1998, about $381K were so purchased. Olsen then presented a chart in Figure 10 showing the number of computers purchased with the previously mentioned funds.

Olsen said that beginning in 1997, $200,000 a year was set aside for workstation acquisition. That availability was valid for 1997 and 1998, he said, and is allocated to the vice presidents on the basis of existing inventory. Thus, academic affairs has 74 percent of all computers bought with appropriated dollars, hence it gets 74 percent of this money, with similar proportions for other vice presidents and the president. At present, $400,000 is set aside for workstation replacement every year, barring recision and other emergencies. A third source, local funds, reflects money spent on a one-time basis to equip Buzzard Hall with about 225 microcomputers. Funding and replacement trends are moving in the right direction, he said.

Olsen presented a table for fiscal 1999 showing an inventory of 531 (including 50 yet to be acquired) microcomputers in open labs, 227 in departmental labs and 1,983 faculty/staff workstations for a total of 2,741, all on a four-year replacement cycle, which he said is consistent with what other universities are doing.

	Open Computer Labs	Departmental Labs	Faculty/Staff Workstations	Totals
Number of Micro Computers	531	227	1,983	2,741
Replacement Cycle in years	4	4	4	4
Yearly Replacement Needs	132.75	56.75	495.75	685.25
Cost per Computer	$ 2,000	$ 2,000	$ 2,000	$ 2,000
Required Annual Expenditure	$ 265,500	$ 113,500	$ 991,500	$ 1,370,500

Estimated Available Revenue:
Student Tech Fee	$ 265,500	$ 80,000		$ 345,500
Workstation Replacement Fund			$ 400,000	$ 400,000
Dept. Appropriated Budgets		$ 33,500	$ 366,500	$ 400,000
Local Funds			$ 400,000	$ 400,000
Total Available	$ 265,500	$ 113,500	$ 1,166,500	$ 1,545,500

Variance	$-	$-	$ 175,000	$ 175,000

Note:FY 1997 appropriated and income funds expenditure total was $764,846 and FY 1998 total was $679,526

Olsen’s code showed that current replacement timetables call for 132.75 machines to be replaced yearly in open labs, 56.75 in departmental labs and 495.75 in workstation settings, for a total of 685.25 replacements yearly. At an average cost of $2,000 per machine, that translates to a required annual expenditure of $265,500 for open labs, $113,500 for departmental labs and $991,500 for faculty-staff workstations or a total of $1,370,500. To cover these costs, $345,500 in STFs is needed annually, $400,000 from the workstation replacement fund, (more money actually has been generated in this fund; Olsen noted that in fiscal 1997, the appropriated and income funds expenditures totalled $764,846, and in fiscal 1998, $679,526) $400,000 from department appropriated budgets and $400,000 in local funds. Olsen said the university can cover the cost of the replacement cycle based on these figures, assuming that there are no other emergencies. He said the numbers do not allow for growth in the computer inventory, but he posed the question whether the university needs more than 2,741 computers. He said the rate of microcomputer acquisition may be slowing. A survey showed that 43 percent of students have their own computers and 68 percent have access to non-university computers. Olsen said these figures were surprisingly high, but he said that, counterintuitively, the availability of private computers has not diminished need for open labs, at least at other universities.

Olsen said the university has made progress in microcomputer acquisition and can adhere to its replacement cycle. He said enough money is available in appropriated and income funds to purchase non-microcomputer equipment. Abebe questioned whether this is indeed reality at Eastern. By comparison, in 1995, $156,000, and in 1996, $432,000 was available. Thus, more money has been set aside in the planning process and spent on computer acquisitions.

In response to a comment by Halbert questioning the continued need for open labs in light of increased access to non-university computers. Henard said that if expenditures for lab computer acquisition are reduced, that reduction likely will occur because funding will be needed for peripherals and specialty applications such as high band width applications. Open labs are unlikely to disappear, he said, although their use may change. He said he believes it is unlikely that more than 3,000 computers will be needed on campus.

Halbert commented that while computers may be more available on campus, off-campus students may still need to utilize open labs. She also questioned whether, once STFs have purchased needed computers, remaining money in that fund will go toward peripherals. Olsen said this is one option to be considered by the committee, along with expanding instructional technology enhancement dollars, as long as the commitment to the replacement cycle in the open labs is met.

Reed Benedict questioned whether any funding is being allotted for uses such as providing Internet access and asynchronous learning. Olsen acknowledged the importance of the Internet. He said the university funding model has been successful to the point to which it can help subsidize Internet access. This is to the credit of others on the committee, he said. In three to five years, however, he added, the university may have to look at a different model for funding Internet access.

Henard addressed the Internet issue as an aside to funding concerns. He said Net traffic is doubling every 100 days and noted that the university is depending on outside providers for service. He said 12 different routers are required to access the Chicago library mainframe from Eastern, any of which can fail or be overloaded. He said there is no way to know which provider will be best six months down the road and that dependency on outside providers is unavoidable. Breakdowns also are unavoidable, but the university and individuals must plan and position themselves to be least vulnerable. (as a note of explanation, an example is given. Those who plan to use the Web for a lecture should cache the information beforehand to avoid Internet outages and degradation.) He said the cost of leading-edge technology such that Internet II is beyond the means of all but research institutions. Abebe said that technology magnifies inequities and is out of date no sooner than it is adopted.

Abebe then directed committee members to review of criteria for evaluation of STF applications.

Eastern Illinois University
Computer Technology Fee Proposal Process
Fiscal Year 1999

Application Process

Approximately $100,000 in Student Computer Technology Fee revenue is available in fiscal year 1999 to support information technology projects, which will enhance directly the educational experiences of Eastern Illinois University students. To apply, the attached form should be completed in its entirety and submitted to the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, no later than April 10, 1998. Proposals will be reviewed by the Academic Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) during the latter part of the Spring 1998 semester. Academic Affairs and Information Technology Services will do an analysis of proposals ranked high by ATAC during May through August of 1998, and recommendations will be made to ATAC for final review in September 1998. Proposals selected for funding in FY 1999 will be implemented by the appropriate departments and ITS during Fall 1998 semester.

Evaluation Criteria

Among the criteria, which will be considered in the evaluation of proposals, will be the following:

Degree of direct impact on the student educational experience
Number of students to be affected directly by the project
Potential for transferability of the information technology application to other Eastern programs
Extent to which the information technology application is integrated into the instructional process, as apposed to serving only as a utility (for example, word processing of student papers)

Proposal cost relative to available resources
Ability of the department to support the project in future years (equipment replacement, software upgrades, printer and paper costs, and lab supervisor salary)

Funding Eligibility

Computer Technology Fee revenue can be used to fund the purchase of hardware, software, and other equipment directly related to and necessary for the project. Fee funding will not be provided for capital improvements (other than installation of necessary network and electrical connection) or personal services. Assistance in developing hardware/software budget estimates is available from ITS (extension 3227). Staff support and technical assistance from ITS will be available for funded projects. The nature and extent of this support will be coordinated and finalized during the summer analysis of potential projects.

He appointed a task force of Hank Davis, Pat Fewell, Dana Riguette and Keith Cosentino to review and discuss STF criteria and emerging needs in time for the next meeting. All accepted appointment. These criteria were approved two years ago and applied a year ago to allocate instructional technology enhancement grant dollars. As an example of these criteria, Abebe said, past recipients who ask for further funding might be held accountable for the way they spend their initial funds. Baharlou endorsed the criteria, noting again his concern that technology be used for more than word processing. He also applauded Olsen for his role in establishing microcomputer appropriations and asked whether the $400,000 figure mentioned by Olsen is available for spending. Olsen said it has been allocated, and Abebe added that these were the funds allocated to departments for equipment. Witsman expressed his disappointment that more requests were not received last year for these funds.

Abebe called for discussion of the calendar for student technology fee proposals.

He read a draft of the calendar: Jan. 22, announcement for proposals; Feb. 26, due date for submissions; May 26, proposal evaluations completed; April 16, announcement of ranges of programs and funding; and May 21, establishment of implementation schedule and purchase of equipment. Henard said this schedule would allow sufficient time for completion. By consensus, the committee agreed to the calendar.

Abebe noted that committee members had been given a list of ATAC members and their terms in office.

Position on Committee	Person Representing
Faculty Representative College of Arts and Humanities	Peter Hesterman
Faculty Representative Lumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences	Hank Davis
Faculty Representative College of Education and Professional Studies	Brian Reid
Faculty Representative College of Sciences	Jim Bruehler
Faculty Representative Council on Graduate Studies	Reed Benedict
Department Chair College of Sciences	Alan Baharlou
Department Chair College of Arts and Humanities	Les Hyder
Associate Vice President for Information Technology Services	David Henard
Director of User Services, Information Technology Services	John Henderson
Dean from: Lumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences OR College of Education and Professional Studies	Elizabeth Hitch
Head of Media Services	William Gibbs

Position on Committee	Person Representing
Faculty Representing Library Services	Nackil Sung
Faculty Representing Faculty Senate	Dana Ringuette
Faculty Representing Council on Teacher Education	Kevin Hussey
Faculty Representing Council on Academic Affairs	Mary Wohlrabe
Department Chair from Lumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences	Yunus Kathawala
Department Chair from College of Education and Professional Studies	Mahmood Butt
Dean from: College of Arts and Humanities OR College of Sciences	James Johnson
Dean from: School of Adult and Continuing Education; Library Services; Graduate School; or University Studies	Allen Lanham
Director, Information Systems and Services	William Witsman
Coordinator, Distance Learning	Pat Fewell

Abebe then introduced Jeff Cross, associate vice president for academic affairs.

Finally, Abebe called for discussion of the strategic role of ATAC. He alluded to a restructuring of the committee to do more than discuss the spending of funds — to help define the role of technology on campus and ATAC’s relationship to the rest of campus. If ATAC is just a budget review committee, it need not meet more than once a year, he said. Given the talent on the committee, however, it can do more, he said. Abebe appointed a taskforce to help draft a statement of what ATAC’s role should be. Named were Henard, Cross, Douglas Brandt, Bill Gibbs and Jeremy Wendel. It was the consensus of the committee to work in this direction.