11/03/05 Special Meeting Minutes
|Handouts:||CRC 06/07 Working Report - MS WORD|
SPECIAL MEETINGCRC Recommendation 2006-2007 Approval
Handouts of the CRC Recommendation 2006-2007 draft were distributed for review. Committee Chair, Gary Calderone, lead the group through an overview of the document, and stated that the outlook for funding this year was better than recent years thanks to the bond. He also attributed the positive budget figures to the outcome of the OIT Computer Build project, which built more machines for the same budgeted dollars and satisfied more AWUP machine requests.
Gary indicated a need to educate people about what type of requests should be routed through the CRC process and what could be done by contacting the Help Desk. He also stated that many requests this year were satisfied through other means. He continued on to speak about the main areas of focus, citing technology support staffing as a large concern. He noted that each year the CRC recommends more labs and more technology, but staffing is not generally considered. It was mentioned that there were no immediate quick fixes, but that as soon as the Technology Assessment Taskforce completed their work, solutions would be implemented. References were made to the memos from Connie Sherman and David Cost advising the CTC to set aside funds for any recommendations made by the Taskforce. Exact language from these memos appears below:
Connie Sherman's proposal: I would suggest that the CRC and CTC consider setting aside $100,000 to $250,000 of the $1 million available for technology, for implementing any recommendations of the Technology Assessment Taskforce (TAT) that would require capital dollars. If funds are not set aside, then the earliest capital dollars would be available for TAT recommendations would be July 1, 2007. If funds are set aside and NOT needed, then Procurement could work their way through CRC/CTC's prioritized list based on the availability of funds.
David Cost's response: Gary, Whether or not we have funds available for Connie's request, I think it is imperative that the CRC meet to discuss any technology requests from the Technology Assessment Taskforce and make adjustments to the existing priorities. I do not recommend a "blank check" approach, but a deliberate evaluation of any additional requests alongside the existing ones.
Discussion about the memos resulted in the shared group opinion that using reserved capital money to fix identified problems sooner (06/07) rather than later (07/08) was better, but there would be a loss of some lower ranked requests if TAT recommended use of the funds. It was agreed that if TAT did not immediately recommend use of reserved funds, CRC would continue with the original plan to purchase the remaining ranked requests.
Gary stated that a continued focus from previous years was to protect the established technology refreshment programs AWUP & EWUP as well as implement the new program to refresh projectors/presentation systems referred to as DPUP. He progressed through the document to review the futures recommendations and ranking of requests.
Technical support concerns resurfaced in the conversation as Gary explained that the CRC and other college wide committees are working in a vacuum on this topic. He expressed a need for some mechanism to identify a source of support for the new technology that the CRC annually approves. He also stated that CRC membership is less organized than it could be, citing a high learning curve for new members (particularly new chairpersons) each year, with only a short amount of time to complete work. He recommended an experienced chairperson from year to year for continuity and fresh voices (members) rotated into membership every year.
It was noted that the CRC will need to reconvene after the TAT recommendations on technology support and staffing.
Questions were asked about alternative solutions for some of the ranked items – like student laptops for checkout, and docking station/laptops for Fire Science. A suggestion was to satisfy the requests with long-term checkout of equipment from the Critter Farm. Responses were that among other issues, it would be difficult to mix resources for student use with employee/faculty use because of priority and purposing complexities. It was noted that the question was raised with the thinking that more technology requests require more staff to support it, and one way to indirectly address the issue is to find creative solutions through shared resources.
Gary noted that addressing adequate staffing concerns should be a part of the technology request process. It was noted that all future technology requests should include, or in some way address, support solutions. Including this requirement in the process would serve as a check/balance for technology requests between committees. Gary also stated he felt that a dedicated member (not necessarily voting) was needed to attend meetings of multiple committees to have cross-context and continuity of information and decisions between committees (PBAC, Facilities, Staffing, CRC, etc…). He reiterated that common membership was key. It was noted that the TAT and CTC could make this idea a formal recommendation.
Copies of the DPUP plan specifics were distributed for review. KC lead the group through the document. He affirmed that computers (presentation support) are included in the plan.
Deborah K. made the motion to accept the CRC Recommendation 2006-2007 as working document. Gary seconded the motion. The motion passed with all in favor. It was noted that the CRC would meet again after TAT and Budget committee recommendations.
NOTE: there is a CRC Meeting on Monday 11/7 to finalize the document. The working copy has been posted with these minutes as of 11/8/05. A final report will be posted to the CTC website when complete.