Information Technology Council

Meeting Minutes

February 8, 2008

Present:               Jan Fox, Matthew James (for Dominique Elmore), Tom Hankins, Arnold Miller, Dennis Anderson, Allen Taylor, Teresa Bolt, Ronda Sturgill, David Johnson, Frances Hensley, Monica Brooks, Carol Perry, Layton Cottrill

Guest:                  Nat DeBruin

Minutes of January:    Approved as written

Jan:                        We have a new look for the IT web page for Sharepoint.  We are trying to make a common format for the web and for Sharepoint so internal documents are protected but also allows for easy updates.

The new Web Portal Administrator, John Cummings started on February 1.  Historically, the concern was that there was only one person in that position and when we lose those positions, it is hard to recover.  We will back up that position with a position from MURC, but it has not been filled yet.

Review of Legislation:

Senate Bill 595 – Vision 20/20. This is a Major Education Bill with Technology components. 

Senate Bill 85 deals with financial electronic commerce. 

House Bill 4343 deals with the Office of Technology and redefines the Office of Technology (formerly the Governor’s Office of Technology).  Part of that deals with the economic development side of web enabling and doing e-business.  They are setting the groundwork of the conversion of documents into electronic format.  It also deals with Higher Education and doctoral institutions, and we really need to look at it.  It also deals with donation of surplus computers which has been an issue for us.

Senate Bill 3939 deals with property in electronic format.  This impacts our GIS group.

House Bill 3007 dealing with highways, but it has a component called Wireless Infrastructure Act, trying to promote wireless as a mechanism for updating the intelligent transportation system.  This has an impact on the Rahall Transportation Institute. 

House Bill 2177 is a whole series of bills dealing with medical issues, electronic medical records, and electronic pharmaceuticals.

House Bill 3225 deals with electronic commerce and medical records.

House Bill 2168 addresses credit card transactions on college campuses and an effort to eliminate campus marketing of credit cards. 

Senate Bill 558 deals with commerce issues for e-commerce and digital signatures.

Senate Bill 609 deals with innovation and development and venture capital.

Senate Bill 512 deals with public records management and preservation.  The Library is directly impacted.  We have been trying to get a standard for storing materials.  The county courts have been pushing this from the library side. 

Federal issue House Bill 4137 deals with issues of Financial Aid and basically says that if we don’t do something about illegal downloading it will affect student funding.

Allen:                    The Student Center Lab opened in the Marco’s kitchen area.  We are working with the Student Center governing board and management to look at how much usage there is in that lab and consider expanding the lab as renovations continue. 

We are proceeding with the FCC grant.  There is some training next week for the administrators of the grant.  We hope to put out bids for the fiber that will connect us to complete the out link to St. Mary’s and their education center and the link for us to connect to OSC Net for Internet II access.  We hope to have those out by the end of February with an award sometime around the end of March.  The schedule depends on the federal paper work.  We would like to have something in place by July.

Tom:                      David came to So. Charleston week before last to give us an introduction on the use of the Breeze product for course delivery.  I think the product might be very helpful.

Matt:                     SGA would like to have Vista on SGA machines; however, they are older machines.  It is suggested that they contact the Help Desk for update to Office 2007 and possible upgrade to Vista.

Arnold:                 I am working on the cell phone project to generate a cafeteria list for cell phone services to give to students to see what we can do about rates for students.  We need to be careful with ethics laws if offering such plans to staff and faculty.  I have spoken to cellular carriers and they have agreed to link to their site for programs for students.  They also agreed to be on site for move-in week in the fall to market their plans and products.  I hope to have this wrapped up by the end of the month; we will surely have it in place for pricing discussions during Orientation in April. 

Allen:                    We have been contacted by a couple of cell phone vendors separately who are interested in offering high speed ATMS/HSDP service in the Huntington/Charleston area.  Intelos will be doing a press release on campus.  They are going to be rolling out EVDO revision A which is 1.5 mg on the cell phone service all the way up to 3 mg (3g service) and they are planning to do that in March. 

We have received the new Banner products and are moving forward on those.  I can give you the schedule for testing and development.    We hope to have these up by Fall.

Arnold:                 We have received indication of funding to start our push to establish a disaster recovery site in South Charleston; we are in the process of talking with vendors about a product to place in there in order to get the environment itself up to date.  We have been modeling what we would do in the machine room in terms of what equipment we would have there.  I am hopeful that by this time next year, we will have it in place.  With WebCT/Vista it is important to us in the delivery of course work and it could seriously impact the institution if it went down for a period of time.

We have had some turnover within Computing Services.  Gary Weis has retired.  Chuck Elliott, Director of Customer Services will be leaving.  We will be moving to refill that position and will attempt to keep things running smoothly. 

Monica:                We implemented a new service called Rapid ILL behind the scenes that allows us to fill electronic requests from other institutions.  Rapid ILL is requiring half of the staff of the library to meet the needs.  A lot of people have been trained on Rapid ILL but we do not want to take them away from their other duties.

Pam Ford retired in January and we have interviews scheduled for that position.  We changed the job to include some metadata and digital resource management duties.  

David:                   In our last meeting we talked about whether we needed changes to the E-course Policy where it addresses adjunct faculty.  Ronda and I have reviewed the policies and we have determined that everything is covered by existing policy.  AA 5 identifies the process for adjuncts so that we are following our own procedures.  Minor changes are needed and can be covered by educating the departments and putting a contract in place.  We need to make sure paperwork is handled prior to the start of the semester and we will know if the course is overload/inload or adjunct.  Everything needed is a procedural change and not a policy change.    Frances brings the issue of summer school and what determines what is in-load and over load.  Deans are handling summer school differently and it is something that needs to be reviewed.  The policy is silent about summer school.

Jan asks that the e-course committee address The Telecommuting Policy and the impact of the absentee faculty.

Ben Ellis, our TECI support person has left us for a job in Charleston.  We have a back up person with the ITVS engineering group so we don’t anticipate any long term impact.     Berlin Fang, our instructional designer has accepted a position in Oklahoma.  We are now in the process of filling the Director for the Center for Instructional Technology position and are doing interviews within the next couple weeks.  We just made an offer for another Learning Management System Administrator position. 



Nat DeBruin:      This is policy is being driven by a lack of space and lack of resources to process the collections we already have.  We have 756 manuscript collections; only about 100 of those are processed to where they are indexed and can be easily used.  We still have 657 that are not normally used.  If we continue to keep taking things in, that backlog will continue to grow and the space to store those will get smaller and smaller.  We have some things we want to continue to collect because they support the academic programs of the institution and the local historical and research needs of faculty and community. 

We get a lot of interest from community of things they want to donate, but we have to be selective on what we take in the future.  This policy is a guideline for accepting collections and contains a requirement of monetary resources for processing and storing collections. 

There is also a de-accession for removing materials from collection.  That means that if there ever is a need to move collections to another museum or historical society, we have a means to give them their collections.  This policy also addresses materials that don’t really fit our university needs.

It is suggested that the policy reflect that final acceptance of a collection is by Jan and the President for collections requiring donations and financial and space allocations.



We have to MOUs for services.  It is time to review these MOUs to see if we need to make changes or create new ones.

Teresa:                 We cannot be reimbursed by the state for charges for anything unless it is on the schedule and we have a MOU in place.  This is not only necessary for us, but is helpful for researchers who need additional resources for them to have a figure to include in Grant requests.


Monica:                We have been undercutting ourselves in how much we have been charging for years and years.  The items in red are in line with national averages.  We have obtained current rates from our peers.  Special Collections requests are normally from external entities.    Red items are the new rates.

Frances requests that the student cost for images should be removed.  Layton suggests leaving the student charge on the schedule with the notation that the cost can be reviewed on a case by case basis.

Voted and Approved


Computing Services

Arnold:                 Clarifications are in red. 

In the event of position turnover it is recommended that the computer be reimaged.  It can be reimaged at no cost, but someone needs to tell us that it needs to be done.

In addition to Database services, Systems Services, Lab Management Contract Services, we need a dedicated Help Desk services component for the service we perform for the e-course group.  Right now they are contracting directly with individuals to handle this.  We are proposing that we charge e-course a fee to deal with help desk issues.  Per David: Currently e-course pays for two positions on the help desk, so instead of paying for two positions directly, it would be charged back by Computing Services and Computing Services would pay those people.  This is above and beyond the 40% indirect cost.  The financial will be the same, maybe slightly more, but it will be a cleaner financial.  This insures that we are getting service by the whole help desk.

Historically, the network on the campus has been self supporting in cases where we have to install new cable, we have to pay a contractor to do that.  We have kept the $250 installation the same but we are being billed $350, so we have to raise our rate to $350.  This is usually an exception where someone has converted a space or didn’t have a jack where they wanted it.  Residence Halls is at issue now with their request for phones in the hallways and the cost can run from $350 to $500 for prep work or asbestos problems. 

Now that we have gone to a wide area network we have some entities that are part of our network that want to tie in their outlying facilities, i.e. the Medical school has clinics and they want to pay to have the connections put in the clinic but they want to bring the traffic here to be routed to Cabell.  We want to make sure we don’t give something away for free.   That traffic has to be accounted for and this allows us to charge that fee back to those entities to recover our costs and keep the costs down for everybody else who is paying the internet access fees.

Voted and approved


Distributed Education

David:                   No changes in ITVS rates. 

The Center for Instructional Technology: the change we would like to make is under basic web site design, web site maintenance and multimedia development; none of those have anything to do with academics they are above and beyond academic.  We have the occasional request to help with a personal web site not related to course work.  Normally, we don’t do web site design and development for individuals.  This would give us the option to charge for that work.  We could perhaps insert the waiver statement for academic use.  Frances requests that we add a disclaimer that this is for outside the academic, instructional use.

On the Adobe Connect Conferencing for faculty and staff there would be no charge.  Under Marshall University Departments and other state agencies, again this would be for non-academic use.  Under set-up fee, we would shift that to the charged fee for the departments and other state agencies and use the waiver statement for academic use but for corporate and external entities they will be charged.

Allen is concerned about the conferencing rate of $20 per hour.  Something needs to be said about scheduled availably of licenses and space available.  We don’t want confusion about the assumption that there is unlimited availability.  We need to amend the statement to say based on availability.

Voted and approved