Meeting Notes - April 19, 2006
Technology Task Force Notes
Wednesday April 19, 2006
Time: 3:00 – 4:30
1) Approval of Notes from March 29, 2006 Handout # 1
The notes were approved.
2) Quick Updates
Course Management System: L. Elvin advised the team that the academic senate had approved the recommendation to use Moodle as the college’s On-line Course Management System. The item would now go to College Council for final approval. The Finance and College services division had identified $20K for migration costs. The official start date is yet to be determined.
Service Level Agreement – Client Services: M. Kahn updated the team on the progress of the sub-group working on this item. The sub-group had requested that the Academic Senate review the SLA and give them feedback to present to the Technology Task Force. However, after some discussion during this Technology Task Force meeting it became apparent that there was confusion on the input process of the Academic Senate. The sub-group would work to resolve the uncertainty with the Academic senate and bring back the requested feedback.
iTunes: M. Kahn gave a brief overview of this proposed agreement with Apple for a district iTunes site and explained how it might effect the college. There were a number of areas that still need to be addressed. This item will be included on an upcoming agenda as a demo.
iPod: J. Swensson was approached by Apple to receive some free iPod shuffles. A response was needed by Friday. J. Swensson would poll as many employees as possible and a proposal would be put together.
3) Process for Policy Issues
W. Chenoweth asked the team to consider what the process should be for implementing policy issues that came up during the Technology Task Force meetings. He gave the examples of the Courseware Management System project and the Google - Gmail item. The team discussed the possibilities and decided to solve the policy issues as part of the De Anza Tech Plan.
4) De Anza’s Technology Plan V2 – Identify Goals and Strategies - Cont.
W. Chenoweth loaded version 2 of the document and gave a quick overview of the outline document. In this format all the goals can be viewed at one time. He noted no responsible parties had been identified. The team brainstormed the goals 1 through 4 and ideas were posted to the document. Version 3 of the document would be posted on the Tech Task Force web site for the team to review and bring their ideas to the next meetings.
5) Measure C (Bond) re Tech Task Force and De Anza Tech Plan
J. Hawk reminded the team that if Measure C passes, the district would have to have a process in place by the end of June to request the items for the first bond sale. ETS has budgeted to replace all the tech equipment in the district. The campus would participate in identifying and implementing the process.
She outlined the technology components of the Measure C bond and reviewed the suggested processes for these components as follows:
1) Construction and Renovations: The proposed process would start in the Planning and Budget Teams, based on information from the program reviews, move on through the Facilities Committee and would go to College Council for the final decision. The Facilities group is currently working to establish criteria. It was expected that any outstanding Measure E projects would be funded first.
2) Technology: Existing (replacement) Equipment and Additional Equipment needs. The suggested process is as follows:
• Existing (replacement) equipment: The process would start in the Tech Task Force, which would develop a process similar to the non-instructional requests and allocations. The item would then go to a joint meeting of the Technology Task Force and Campus Budget to review together and make a recommendation to College Council for a final decision.
• Additional Equipment: The process would start in the Planning & Budget Teams (through the program review process) and then move through to Technology Task Force & Campus Budget for a final recommendation to College Council.
There was a discussion regarding the decision making process in relation to the various governance groups. It was noted that the Technology Task Force was a sub-group of College Council. The team considered the points discussed and agreed to support the process as suggested and for the recommendations to be taken to the other governance groups for input.
6) Joint Planning & Budget Team and Tech Task Force Meeting 4/25/06 in KC 112 at 4-5 p.m.
W. Chenoweth informed the team that the Instructional Planning & Budget Team had asked for this joint meeting to be held to discuss the Measure C bond and the College’s Master Plan.
He asked that the core group of Technology Task Force members try to attend this meeting.