Operational IT Committee Meeting Notes
Wednesday, February 26
3:00-4:00 p.m.
FAC 228D
In Attendance: Esther Raizen, Bruce Porter, Laurie Mackie, Pat Davis, Brad Englert,
Mike Horn, Rich Janes, Paul Newman, Kristi Fisher, Dan Slesnick, Deanna, Jerry
Spitel, Gage Paine
I. BACs Rate (William Green)
There are approximately 20,000 building access control alarms on campus. These alarms
are on external doors, communications closets, labs, etc. A task force was convened to
develop recommendations for how to fund BACS as we reduce the telephony charges
with the implementation of VoIP. The task force is recommending that common good
funding be used to cover external door and essential building alarms and that units pay
for alarms above and beyond that number of alarms. Partial funding will be provided for
the removal of excess devices. The new rate is expected to be implemented in
September.
The committee inquired if all units would be responsible for the BACS fee. Only units
who have moved to VoIP and pay the lower telephony fees are subject to new BACS
rates.
The committee inquired who will make decisions on the implementation or removal of
the BACS units. Units will work with networking and campus security and safety to
determine the units needed for individual colleges and schools.
The committee expressed interest in understanding if a private company could not meet
the security needs for a cheaper price than is expected with the proposed BACS system.
A private solution may be possible for internal security of buildings, but external and
certain identified internal units will be under the auspices of campus safety for better
campus security controls. Any private solution that might be entertained will require
and RFP and review.
The committee inquired if there were any mechanism possible for assisting units with
costs. A subsidy to assist with the removal of units identified as excessive may be
considered.
II. Plagiarism Detection Tool (Mario Guerra, Dennis Klenk)
Mario and Dennis presented current usage rates for the plagiarism detection tool
currently used on campus. They are researching potential plagiarism detection tools
that may be incorporated into Canvas. The committee inquired about the evaluation
strategy that would be applied to evaluate proposed technologies. The evaluation
1
strategy will include testing the various tools to ensure that they are comparable in
quality. The committee recommended developing a communication plan so that
faculty are aware of when the new tool is chosen and incorporated into Canvas so
that they can access and use it.
The committee inquired about the perceived awareness of plagiarism detection
tools. It was noted that general awareness of the tool may not be common. As the
tool is explored and adopted, the committee recommends a communication plan for
awareness.
The committee inquired if there was a model wherein students paid for the service
as part of participation in a given course. Subscription models are possible. But, with
a subscription model, integration with Canvas is not guaranteed. The committee
also inquired if a model where we purchase the service by unit was possible.
Varying cost models will be explored.
The committee inquired how intellectual property is protected. UT has its own
database of stored content. Students opt in to a global database. The committee was
also curious about the level of specificity of the plagiarism detection tool.
The committee inquired if any open source software may be available.
The next steps are to research additional tools, test those tools on campus, and seek
compatibility of those tools with Canvas integration. The committee will receive
another update on plagiarism detection tools in the spring.
III. Commodity Server Policy (Brad Englert)
The compliance committee is requesting enforcement of the commodity server policy.
Entailed in the policy is the move of commodity (mainly email and web services) servers
to the data center. Pricing incentives have been developed to help facilitate the move.
The committee commented that the policy feels a bit like and unfunded mandate
and inquired what could be done to communicate to units the value of moving to the
data center and any additional incentive funding that may be used to promote
moving to the data center.
The committee noted that the definition of commodity server—servers currently
processing web and email services within units—be made clearer in
communications.
IV. Chair-Elect Election
This item was postponed.
2