NOVEMBER 24, 2003


Present:       Jan Fox, Monica Brooks, David Johnson, Mike McCarthy, Dennis Prisk, Jody Perry, Tom Hankins, Frances Hensley, Allen Taylor, Arnold Miller, Donna Spindel, Mike Castellani, Gary Anderson, Sarah Denman, Layton Cottrill


REVIEW OF MINUTES: approved as amended




Jan:             There was a merger of the Governor's Office of Technology and IS&C.  WVNet is still not a part of that group.  The merger was a part of a Senate bill.  Because of that, a group of CIOs, and Computer Center Directors, that Arnold chairs, in the state will write a White Paper for higher education that defines what we believe that higher education expects from WVNet; including governance, service and a future network plan that would position WVNet in the appropriate area for research in education.  We are trying to be pro-active.  The concern we feel is that there have been some various issues from WVNet with people trying to take control of this resource and a percentage of our E & G Budgets were redirected to support WVNet.  Higher Education is trying to take an aggressive role in the control of WVNet.  What I would like to do in the portion I am writing is have the state network, with potential fiber to major areas and connect that network beyond our borders.  It would connect into the Ohio Network (ORNET) which goes to Kentucky, and Virginia.  Our view of the network is to not look just within the state, but to connect the state in a way that will give us advantages from both research and education and will not make us an island with nothing running through West Virginia.  We will send the draft of the document out to this group for review.


There are some other things going on with other state agencies.  They are working on a database for state contracts so that they know when contracts are due.  The state has let lapse our telecommunications telephone long distance contract and didn't bid.  That has caused problems with E rate.   


Since we met last, we had the Biotechnology Trade Mission, which was a success.  There were 9 people here representing 5 companies.   One group was directly from Taiwan.  We do have another request from Senator Rockefeller's office to do a Biotechnology Forum next year. 


Mike Dunn has appointed Jody Perry to represent him as a member of this group representing Classified Staff.



Allen:          I reported last time that we had hoped to have a legislative special session that would approve the infrastructure wiring funding for capital upgrades to building.  That did not go through, but will be discussed in the Spring session.  We may miss the summer project list to get started on that.


Mike:          The School of Medicine has formally created a HIPPA Security Policy to meet the compliance deadline of  April, 2005.  We will be drafting policies for the Medical School and sharing them, informally, with this committee for comment.  We will then be sending them to our Board of Directors for adoption.  Jon Cutler and Jim Stephens both sit on this board.    


Jan:             Jon Cutler was one of only 4 people in the state who have passed the National Security Exam. 


Mike:          The Workstation Disposal Policy was adopted.  I understand that there is a general university procedure, but Chuck could not point to an actual policy requiring the stripping of computers before sale.  Per Allen:  Purchasing has developed a standard procedure for disposal of items at the Yard Sale.


Donna:        There are 43 new E-courses ready to go into Vista for this Spring.


Jan:             We had a meeting on Friday with the other campuses.  We have a request from Tom Blevins to take on other community colleges in the state.  We decided to work with Southern Community College for a Service Level Agreement in a pilot program to determine costs before we take on other institutions.


David:         Policy 13 is on the secretary's desk at Faculty Senate right now.  There were 2 changes that were requested.  The references to Policy 9, needed to stay for the most part because of the references to patent and copyright.  The other change requested was a clarification for the rate of pay for instructors.  We used the standard university procedures for determining faculty compensation. 


Jan:             We need to review the compensation formula because the cost to the students has gone up but the faculty compensation has not changed.   Layton recommends that the compensation be reviewed again by Faculty Senate and get subsequent approval by the Provosts. 



Review of Marshall University Copyright Policy – Draft


Jan:             Two years ago WVU came out with a Copyright policy.  They offered that policy to us.  It is a huge policy. 


Monica is on the Copyright committee.  What she is presenting today is clean and separates itself from the Intellectual Property Policy.  Committee consists of Donna Spindel, David Johnson, Sue Tams, Lisa Heaton, Mary Moore, and myself. 


The original policy was not adopted and then it disappeared.  The committee reviewed the Policy in light of the Teach Act.  We had a good foundation for revising this document to reflect our responsibilities under the Act.  The new Act provides a lot of flexibility for us that we did not have before.  There are still some compliance issues that are incumbent upon us to communicate to faculty.  We have planned a couple of seminars to occur in February.  In the new policy we have made a referral to Policy Bulletin 13 because we want to make sure that the faculty knows that if they create an on-line course or utilize multimedia in the creation of course, it does fall under Policy 13 issues and they need to be aware of both policies.  The Definitions are not different from the previous policy. We inserted Teach Act language wherever possible.


Page 4 Bullet 3 clarified that this Policy does not preclude Marshall University’s assignment of complete or partial ownership rights in copyrighted material to the employee-author, if both parties feel such action is to their benefit.


On page 5: Use and Sale of Copyrighted material.  Refers to Policy 13 and the Intellectual Property Policy.  


On page 6 we start introducing Teach Act compliance sometimes called “fair use”.  The Teach Act allows greater flexibility for classroom.  We wanted to communicate to the faculty exactly what that means. 


On page 7 David provides some resources regarding what the Teach Act excludes. 


Page 9 covers fair use guidelines.


Page 11 sites specific items such as course packs.  It also discusses displaying the performance related works of others.


Page 13 covers music, reserve materials for libraries.  All of these are within compliance. 


Page 16 provides a check list for development and distribution of copyrighted material in detail.


Pg 19 is the Teach Act compliance checklist.


My recommendation to Jan was to let Layton's office review this before it goes on to Faculty Senate.


Layton suggests that we treat the old policy like it doesn't exist and use this document as only document.  The deans will have to review this document.


Jan:             The goal here today is to have this document approved as an Interim Executive Policy.  Voted and Approved.





Arnold:       I have incorporated the changes brought up by this group in the last meeting.  The changes were mostly cosmetic with the exception of the following:


3.3.5 – clarifications in wording only.


3.3.13 was changed to come up with a classification system for information to be consistent with the Definitions.  I tried to give an example of the classification and included it in the Definitions.


In 3.3.12:  Each owner and custodian of information will determine its classification based on the circumstance and the nature of the information.  This needs to be done in order to decide how we are going to protect the information.


Various areas of the universities are the owner of their relative information.

Layton has issue with the terms owner/custodian from a legal perspective.


The Definitions section will be hyperlinked whenever used throughout the document.  Layton suggests using examples in the definitions to clarify the definitions.


Jan wants a page that sets out who the university contacts are for various statutes. 


Allen:                   We need to establish guidelines regarding email.


Jan wants to have further review before the next meeting to make sure we are comfortable with the terminology.  Layton will read over the existing document to see if further review/revision is necessary.


We may want to broaden the reading by including the new faculty members who have security expertise.


                   Policy tabled until next meeting.




Arnold:       We advanced one portion that covers the infrastructure, telecommunications, networking and communications policies that need to be advanced to address people going out and purchasing their own wireless systems.  This opens the network up to anyone from the outside.  We need to do something about it now.  This first cut defines that Marshall University owns the ether/airwaves around the campus and we will control the use of that space around campus.  Until technology comes along that encrypts data across the wireless, we are relying on technology called Virtual Private Networks that does that for us.  Data is encrypted at the wireless host and are encrypted from end to end back into the network.   We will not let anyone put their own wireless device in their office for their own use.

We need to restrict use of cordless phones in dorms that could interfere with other wireless.  This policy should include any Marshall site to keep people from doing other wireless activities. 


Allen:          In researching this policy, I found reference in the Residence Services Policy from the 1960s limiting use of ham radios in the residence halls.  To interpret this policy today, it would include cordless phones.


Jan:             We need to make sure our internal people understand that unsecured wireless transmissions could be picked up off campus. 


Allen:          There is a provision in the document that if there is an area of a building where wireless cannot get access, they must get special permission before installing. 


Jan:             This is a concern when teaching; the interference could interrupt class.  This policy is not preventative.  It can only track down violations and have a policy to point to.


This is a first reading – The second reading will be in January.


We will plan for the same time period for our meetings during the Spring Semester.