Library, Media, and Academic Computing Committee Minutes
March 9, 2001
Present: Patrick O’Neil, Heidi Orloff, Renee Houston, Marilyn Mitchel, Keith Ward, Mark Reinitz,
Bill Barry, Karen Goldstein
Absent: Brian Andrade, Barry Bauska, Eric Sharrer
Visitors: Michael Nanfito, Shelley Owen, Tom Aldrich
Karen addressed the group and two issues were brought to the table: Do faculty know who to call
for service and, when they do, do they get the service they need? Communication channels
between the Dean’s office, the Library, and OIS will need to be considered. Would like to work
with LMAC to get some direction from the committee to help her look at issues like these. She
would like to ask questions of the group, bring proposals to the group, and get feedback.
Mark noted that issues of planning and policy are built into the mission of LMAC.
Keith said that instructional technology and training should be within media services, which deals
with issues of streaming audio and other media. The library should be the portal for information.
The University just spent considerable sums of money to build a media center, and there must
have been some policy decision at one point that media services should be housed in the Library.
The staffing structure should support this decision.
Bill commented that communication with faculty is the biggest problem regardless of where it is
located, and that this can be improved. LMAC is the place to look at this. Computing is fairly
egalitarian. The committee should have a very deliberate composition in this regard to be useful to
OIS, and he would not trust the egalitarian structure to make decisions in areas such as
reorganization.
Karen responded that other groups will consider the reorganization issue, in particular the
President’s Technology Planning Group. She anticipates that this group would propose a
planning group with a longer lifetime to consider this and similar issues.
Mark pointed out that the design of LMAC does allow it to take this on, but agreed that LMAC is
not a representative body for the faculty due to the nature of committee appointments. However,
LMAC could serve as a communication vehicle to get input from the entire faculty.
Keith asked whether most faculty even know LMAC exists, so it may be better for LMAC to serve
in an advisory capacity.
Marilyn noted that LMAC does not have authority in the technology area, or perhaps other areas.
To be successful, we would need to consider how LMAC could serve this role, to consider the
process, and how would we oversee this to ensure it happens. This could then feed into budget
processes.
Keith wondered how this could happen if LMAC was just advisory, and Karen noted that the BTF
is also just advisory but everyone looks to it as a good vehicle.
Bill offered that LMAC could in fact be a useful vehicle for reviewing budget issues.
Karen noted that although some decisions may be made at the cabinet level, it’s useful to have a
faculty committee provide input on that decision.
Patrick pointed out that although LMAC is not representative, it could still serve as a form where
faculty can come to press their case, and that this could be more valuable to faculty than working
with one person as the gatekeeper. By providing more access points, it democratizes the
process. We don’t rule and we don’t reign, but we do provide input.
Keith said he would feel uncomfortable serving on a committee that looked at budget
recommendations, prioritizing different requests for different areas.
Renee asked what problems can LMAC solve? Could it solve problems of resources and ideas.
Perhaps it could build a knowledge base of value to decision makers.
Mark felt the committee could make comments on issues such as fairness of process, but that it
would not be the best group to look at hot technology trends and how to respond to them.
Karen summed up the comments so far, offering up the idea that LMAC could advise on
organization and procedure to make things work better and ways to share information and
improve communication. For example, would a liaison structure within OIS be useful to the
faculty, to provide faculty with someone to go to and handle requests?
Patrick: So LMAC informs the agenda?
Karen: Yes, and we should talk about service issues. What services should be centralized and
decentralized? LMAC can provide feedback; what’s working and what’s not?
Bill: It would be difficult for LMAC to trump a plan generated in discussions with departments. The
chairs meeting might be another vehicle for decision-making when looking at competing interests.
Marilyn: We need to consider the role of the committee in planning and policy.
Shelley: LMAC could be an information-sharing body to improve communications.
Mark: LMAC provides an opportunity for faculty input; it doesn’t make decisions.
Bill: The more representative it is, the more power it will have in representing faculty interests.
Tom: LMAC members could serve as liaisons to the faculty to inform decision-making, and ensure
that it is indeed a representative body, if not by the process of choosing members then by the
process of gathering representative input.
Michael: Perhaps LMAC could be part of the dynamic of working with departments to get their
input.
Karen closed by asking the committee if, despite the diverse viewpoints at the table, they would
agree to be the faculty group that she could bring issues to for input. All nodded in agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Aldrich