TPAC Minutes
3 December 2008
In attendance: Mike Cerveny, Dee Ann Rexroat, Don Chamberlain, Aaron Jach, Todd
White, RJ Holmes, Lyle Lichty, Derin Sherman (in the chair)
1. Approval of minutes. Todd clarified the acronym ERMS: read this as
“Sunguard.”
2. The Charge for the Instructional Technology Subcommittee was presented. Mike
had some minor changes. Derin commented on the meaning of the term “support
structure” which has a different meaning for that committee than the standard
usage of the term. Since Holly and Mike Plagge will provide that structure, it was
decided to drop the term from the charge. TPAC will approve the policy once the
revised policy is distributed and members have a change to review it (see
attached).
3. Justification for non-windows based computer system. Mike provided historical
background for the policy and distributed copies of the proposed policy (see
attached). Don asked about the number of non-windows PCs and if these were
only used by faculty. Mike replied that there were about 30 non-PCs and Dee
Ann noted that two of these were in the Office of Communications. Mike also
noted that there were others used by staff, such as Mike Plagge and Holly MartinHuffman, who both have Macs. Dee Ann asked if we could consider “Industry
Standards” as part of the justification for a non-windows system. Lyle also
wondered if there was a way to write “Industry Standards” into the current
justification. Don emphasized that it was very important for users of PCs to be
comfortable with their PCs. In particular, many people have Macs at home and it
makes life much simpler if they have compatible systems between work and
home. He posited that the issue before us is whether we eliminate Macs or
incorporate Macs on campus. He also wondered about the ratio of Macs to
Windows PCs among students. Mike noted that the only difference between
student computers is that Windows systems can download and use online Cornell
applications (e.g. Mathematica) while Mac systems can’t. Lyle wondered how
our lack of support for Macs will affect recruitment and retention, and also
wondered what other colleges do with Macs. The discussion ended with Don
wondering why it was unfeasible for a large number of faculty to request Macs.
To be continued…
Meeting adjourned approximately 12:35
Respectfully submitted,
Derin Sherman
TPAC Instructional Technology Subcommittee
3 December 2008
Membership: The membership consists of a faculty member from each of the college’s
five academic divisions, the Information Technology Manager of Technology Services,
and the Academic Media Consultant. The two faculty members of TPAC represent their
divisions on the subcommittee. The subcommittee chair shall be the TPAC faculty
serving the second year on TPAC. Each faculty member will serve on the Instructional
Technology subcommittee for two years.
Charge:
Technology plays an increasingly important role in education and academia. Faculty are
directly impacted by instructional technology and they should be involved in
recommending the locations and types of technology to be implemented at the College.
Because technology is continually evolving, faculty must also assume active roles in
helping to develop a coherent long-range vision of the role that instructional technology
should play at the College. To further these ends, the subcommittee may initiate
investigations to discover which technologies are most beneficial to keep the technology
current, functional, and relevant, and how similar institutions use these technologies.
This subcommittee vets and recommends to TPAC on issues related to policies and
priorities in the selection and use of instructional technology supporting the academic
programs of the college. Specifically, the Instructional Technology Subcommittee shall
investigate, discuss, and make recommendations to TPAC on matters related to
• the selection of classrooms to receive technology upgrades
• the selection of technology for use in classroom upgrades
• the long-range direction for future instructional technology installations and
upgrades
• other items deemed appropriate by TPAC
Policy: Justification is required for a purchase/installation of a non-windows based computer system.
1) Appropriate justification would consist of:
a. Required software/hardware only available on the requested platform.
i. Equivalent software not available on the Windows platform.
b. Equivalent Windows based software/hardware not feasible to obtain or maintain.
2) Justification would be reviewed by the requesters Department Head, Division Head/Dean, and
the Director of Information Technology.
3) Any current or approved user of a non-Windows based system will not be required to justify
maintaining their current platform unless future compatibility or feasibility issues arise.
Rationale:
1) As we continue to develop our network and services provided, such as remote access, it is not
technically efficient or feasible to offer equivalent services to non-Windows operating systems.
2) On a per computer basis, Information Technology support staff spends a disproportional
amount of time supporting non-Windows based operating systems.
3) In regards to Apple computer systems, Information Technology is unable to do warranty work
on the system. Apple systems requiring warranty work must be taken to a certified Apple repair
shop in Cedar Rapids. Turnaround time for the repair process is usually between 3 and 5
business days.
4) In most cases, the non-Windows system is unsupported in our environment.
a. Since UNIX based systems such as Linux and Free BSD are open source, product support
is usually obtained through the online user communities and not an enterprise level
support tool so there is no guarantee that an issue can be resolved.
b. Apple Corporation will not support their systems in an environment such as ours
(Windows Servers, Active Directory Authentication).
5) In some cases, the initial purchase cost for a non-Windows system is substantially higher.
a. Even though most UNIX based systems are free, it does not save the College in licensing
fees. The licensing for most of the College’s Microsoft products is based off our FTE and
not the actual number of computers running their software.
b. Apple systems cost substantially more than a Windows system.
i. Last year we paid $680 for a Windows desktop and $1,239 for an equivalent
Apple system. A difference of $559 or 45%.
ii. Last year we paid $784 for a Windows laptop and $1,216 for an equivalent
Apple system. A difference of $432 or 36%.