February 1, 2013

February 1, 2013

Information Technology Committee Meeting, Vance 307

I.  Meeting called to order at 1:16pm.

II.  Minutes from December 7th, 2012 approved with correction to those in attendance.   Rob W. and Jen P. were present, Chet L. and Joe F. were not.

III.  Announcements

Ad-hoc committee on online learning: Tom reported that the faculty senate wants to convene a committee looking at policies for online classes at CCSU.  We currently offer online classes on a limited basis.  The ad-hoc committee meetings will start next week.  Tom will bring issues back to ITC, then ideally bring ideas to the faculty senate by end of the semester.  One question is if CCSU should expand the online course offering.  We have a very expansive offering in summer and winter (1/3 of summer classes are online).  Tom perceives that CCSU faculty are willing to teach online.  “Not-for-credit” classes will not be an issue taken up by the committee.

Ron:  Suggested that student evaluations are an issue to consider.

Charles: Described how some universities don’t provide grades until students fill out a survey.

Tom: Added that perhaps we can offer carrots for evaluation participation, such as a drawing for a gift card.

Recent Happenings with the BOR CIO: Tom reported how, back in December, the Senate President asked him to attend a BOR meeting.  The BOR was concerned about polities that were passed with very little discussion in the campuses (particularly policies regarding acceptable use and electronic communication).  AAUP felt the policies violated AAUP-BOR contract.  There was a sit-down with CIO Chang in December to express these concerns.  Another meeting occurred in early January in which CIO Chang said:  AAUP thought there wasn’t adequate faculty representation in deciding policies.  CIO has agreed to change representation on IT Policy Committee to include a representative and alternate from the ITC Committee from each CSU campus.  It was also agreed that it would be helpful to have meeting with ITC reps and CIOs from each campus with CIO Chang.  March 15th is the date for this meeting.

Change from Microsoft Live: Students are on Live at EDU (Microsoft-based provider of e-mail).  There will be a transition to Office 365 after finals (May 10th).  The new system gives students Web versions of office and SharePoint (a file sharing system) and access to Link (a Skype-type product that includes video chat).  Eventually faculty will have access to SharePoint for collaboration with students.  System also increases student mailbox capacity.

IV.  Old Business

Software Requests: Lisa presented recent software requests.  There are new software requests totaling $26,029 and renewals totaling $130,093.

James: Reported that we spent around $115,000 last year, but got separate money for Adobe.  We need to decide what to do with new requests and things that the System Office once funded but no longer does (SPSS and SigmaPlot are examples of such software).

Tom:  Added that, as usual, requests exceed capacity.  Usually the software committee evaluates requests based on the number of students affected.  Tom asks we prioritize the list.  OE is declining, so we need to see if we can knock some costs down and decide what our absolute priorities are.  He asked if there is anything that we could live without for the next year.

James:  Suggested that we ask for all of the money being requested.

Lisa: Reminded us that some requests are free.

Tom: Suggested that we recommend what the committee has sent us.  Motion to put the list of requests forward was initiated

Chet motioned, another offered a second.  No discussion.  The motion to forward the software committee’s list of requests passed unanimously.

BOR-FTAC: Tom reported that our current rep isMike Davis from Bio Sciences.  This is a general faculty get-together.  The BOR is running the IT dimension for the community colleges.  We are reminded that the CSUs have different issues from community colleges.  Tom solicited someone to take Mike’s place.  Mike is still willing to serve.

Motion to confirm Mike Davis was initiated, a second was offered by Joe.  No discussion.  The motion to confirm Mike Davis passed unanimously.

V.  New Business

A. Elect Rep to BOR CIO Information Tech Policy Committee: Tom opened floor to nominations for representative.

James:  Asked for point of clarification.  Is there a faculty rep in addition to other non-faculty reps?

Tom: Offered clarification.  Yes, there is a faculty rep and an alternate.

James:  Offered more details on the position.  The meetings are in Hartford and many people dial-in.  There are two non-faculty reps you can consult with.

Charles nominated himself.  Charles then nominated Ron Todd as a back-up.  Motion for these nominations passes unanimously without discussion.

B.  Drafts of 3 major IT policies: Tom reported that Electronic Communication was contentious, with several draft amendments presented.   Major concerns still linger in this policy.  The problem is that the state can monitor our communication.  CSU didn’t want to do that without notification.  There is an expectation of privacy for research projects involving human subjects.  This privacy is in question with state surveillance.  Because everything we do is as a state employee, the Freedom of Information Act comes into play.  However, at the same time, we have sensitive communication that should be considered.  The Electronic Communication policy as adopted says there is no privacy – anything can be monitored.  AAUP contract says there is an expectation of privacy, creating a conflict that should be considered.  The Acceptable Use and Electronic Communication policies have been adopted, the Information Security policy was not.  It is currently in draft form and being revised based on prior comments.  Tom wants us to look at the policies.

James: Offered a comment that the data retention period is currently 4 months.

Tom:  Reported that faculty are responsible for retaining grade books for 5 years.  E-mail retention is for 4 months here at CCSU.  There is a comments thread on the blog to offer feedback on these policies.  This will be basis of discussion in the future.

C.  Computer Impoundment Procedures: Tom reported that faculty computers have been seized after viruses were detected.  The computers weren’t returned for extended periods of time.

Lisa:  Offered that virus removal is a slow process.  System has to be quarantined, the hard drive duplicated, then scanned.  We are doing this with part-time staff.  This is slow and system office wants duplication.  Office tries to get faculty members re-imaged, back up, and running as quickly as possible.  Lisa recommends that faculty use M drive for important data.

Tom:  Suggested that we need an explicit policy.  We should also know what we can store on the M drive.

Lisa:  Reports that we have 10G, which is a good amount for critical data.  The machines are swept and the System Office does the forensic investigation.

James:  Commented that we are responsible for security, but BOR keeps forensics process/outcomes a secret.  This is a catch-22.

Lisa:  Suggested that CCSU is trying to manage expectations.  She reminded people to put things on M drive for this purpose.  Get things off of C-drive.  The M-drive is backed-up.  There are also issues with Clouds.  Don’t recommend DropBox due to security breach issues.  Your M drive can be accessed at home, so use it.  Call Help Desk if you don’t know how.

D.  Apple OSx Mountain Lion Upgrade: Tom reported that Mountain Lion was released last June, but we have no upgrade path on campus.   We only had one license within the system. ECSU downloaded it first.  CCSU got it November 18th.

Lisa:  Suggested that it’s not that we aren’t upgrading, it’s that we are slowly upgrading.  We are having logistical issues at the moment.  We are in the testing phase and trying to fix the Java issues first.  If you need Banner, use Cirtix right now.

E. Paperless signature: Tom suggested that this is something that we will be talking about next month.

F.  Nominating Committee for Offices for next year: Chet reminded us thata nominating committee needs to be formed this year.  Joe and Chet volunteered for the committee.

6.  Motion to adjourn was passed without discussion at2:47pm.  March 1st is the next ITC meeting.  We will meet at 1pm.
Respectfully submitted by

Diana T. Cohen


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>