IT
Ron: To begin discussion on IT planning and budgeting – right now to a large degree, 99%, of IT
expenditures are out of one time money, i.e. bond funds. That is not a plan for sustainability going
forward. What would happen when the bond fund is exhausted? This language is an effort to put in our
budget allocation model a mechanism to fund IT projects and multi-year IT projects.
Bob: This needs to be converted to English. It is okay here but needs to be explained in this room. When
somebody goes to the Board for the first time, I suggest that they assume they are speaking to a very
precocious 6th grader, but simply it a little bit. Only district I know that doesn’t have most of the IT in an
IT budget at an ongoing basis. Over the years, the categorical money that was coming in and the way it
has been diverted has been atrocious. In the last few years, it has been more transparent and
appropriate. Before those years, it was inappropriate the way it was being done. Making it very clear so
that we can explain it to people without parse out the paragraph would be helpful.
Ron: skipping to the second paragraph, what I am suggesting is that after we closed our books, generally
in Oct/Nov, we identify one time dollars at a District level that I will recommend to the Chancellor to be
allocated to match college dollars for IT budget. For example, COA has an IT College master plan. It goes
out three years in planning for maintenance, servers, computers, etc. I have a fund in place. The College
begins to set aside dollars to fund that. Essentially, it would provide additional dollar for the college that
would be a dollar-for-dollar match to help that college fund on an ongoing basis. The forum for that
discussion would be the District Technology Council (DTC). I have in the timeline and be very clear that
these request for consideration projects would go to the DTC for review and consideration. They would
assemble all requests from the colleges and central services and then prioritize them and to the extent
that there are matching funds available, they would allocate the dollars or recommend to the PBC
allocating these dollars from the highest priority down to we’ve exhausted all the funds. The projects
would be funded, recommendation would go to the PBC. Based upon our discussion, then the
recommendation would go to the Chancellor. Once the Chancellor approves it, then the funds would be
allocated to the colleges to fund those projects no later than Feb. 1 so we can get started and get the
projects completed prior to June 30 (end of the fiscal year).
Rick: confused with the relation of general fund and the bond money. Typically what happens at the
colleges is that they say, “well the IT stuff we can get out from the bond money. We can get the routers
and servers. That’s equipment and a permanent part of the college. We can get that from Measure A or
Measure E. So it doesn’t have to come out of general fund. General fund can be used to staff another
person at the Counseling office. The only way we can pay that person’s salary is from the general fund. I
am confused why now that we have extra money that can go to IT? How does this relates to bond
money?”
Ron: it doesn’t relate to Bond money. That is the reason why we need to discuss this. We don’t have an
ongoing mechanism or source of funds to fund IT projects on an ongoing basis. Bond monies are onetime on an election-to-election basis. The question is what happens when we don’t have any bond
money? Right now, at the current spending rate, we are projected to be out of Measure A and E money
that is specifically Board designated for IT refresh within 18-24 months. This provides mechanism to
fund those after that has been exhausted. We cannot continue with assumption that we will always
have bond money. Need to have a mechanism to fund those projects with a more stable funding source.
Dr. Berry: Do you expect the Tech committee to set the criteria for evaluation of the College’s IT plan?
Ron: Yes, that was my thought but this is draft language going to our BAM, a living document. If we want
some other consideration, we can talk about it.
Dr. Webb: I appreciate you asking that question. I think we need to be a bit more active with the
statement. I think that was the essence of why I interpret the … That’s why I like this question and
having you discuss it. To be a bit more directive in the statement if that’s the case. I propose, for
example where you write:” Identified and prioritized projects will be forwarded to the district
technology committee (DTC) for their review and consideration. To the extent that there are one-time
funds available, the DTC will review all requests submitted for consideration of these matching funds
and forward to the PBC its recommendations no later than January 1.” I would be more explicit, “in
order to ensure a robust investment in the IT infrastructure of the District, deplore of the colleges, the
district technology committee will have the responsibility for reviewing and recommending
recommendation to the Chancellor for the budget allocation on an annual basis.” Go through our district
wide shared governance process. I’d like a more directive statement and not sure what the rule of the
overall group so that it is not so passive.
Linda: I would suggest that the sentence begins with “The colleges will identify and prioritize projects.”
Ron: That was the thought in mind. #1) these requests should go to the DTC in an organized manner.
Much of the discussion and recommendation would happen at the DTC. Let the DTC have the first shot
at establishing the criteria and what they are asking to be received from the colleges, whether it be a
standard form they are going to create so that it is a more standardized process. They can filter the info
in a consistent and an efficient manner. I understand your concern. My fear is that the more
prescriptive, it takes away the flexibility. This language has not been shared with the DTC yet. In terms of
fairness, I was hoping to forward to the DTC for review and feedback. Give them flexibility and some
ability to out a stamp on their process.
Dr. Webb: I like the direction this is going.
Karolyn: how does or would this play out at the district IT level?
Ron: I am hoping it would complement what we currently have at the District IT level. For example, at
the District IT level, we get a lot of requests from the colleges to fund certain endeavor because the
colleges believe should be the responsibility of the District. We haven’t clearly defined or articulated
what systems or infrastructure network is the responsibility of the college versus the district. I know
those discussion to delineate that responsibility will happen if it haven’t already started happening. I am
hoping this creates a mechanism that would get out of the current practice of we don’t have the money,
push it to so and so.
Karolyn: I get that part, the part I am wondering about is there is no budget for District IT expenses. No
regular line item budget. Is that accurate?
Ron: No, there is. They have their own cost center and budget. The majority of that is in people and
some in annual renewal of the PeopleSoft software licenses. Much of the discretionary budget are in
software license renewals. They have very little discretionary dollars that we can use to fund requests
from the colleges.
Karolyn: that’s what I meant. The other part is the district server just crashed recently, where does the
cost for that comes from? Where is the line item that covers that cost?
Ron: similar to the college, that was measure a
Karolyn: given that, except for loss bond funds, where does the district IT expenditure for equipment
show up in this suggestion? How does it work?
Ron: it would show up in the District IT, would follow the same process that the college would in terms
of forwarding these proposals or requests/ considerations for these matching funds.
Joe: you need to take into account the licensing fee for instructional software. This is getting to be quite
Honorius. It is a very large expense at the colleges and I thought think we can handle them
independently. I would like to see something in here that taking care of in some way. That there are
funds set aside for instructional software that the IT equipment is being purchased for and installed, to
run.
Bob: I think the attentiveness is really good. It is a little sideways. I don’t like this at all. IT is not going
away and has not historically been in our budget. I think our intent is to have a regular IT line item in the
budget that includes all district and college needs. That should be a clean unambiguous line. That should
include the campus IT people, the Cost of equipment on campus, include replacement cost for
computers and equipment on campus. That should be a standard ordinary part of doing business on a
regular basis. When there is bond money, the bond money should do that. When that is gone, we need
to transfer in. If we don’t have a bond to cover it, it’s gotta come from somewhere. We should start
making that a regular part of the budget because dealing with something that should be everyday like
paying the telephone bill for having a telephone at the desk, IT should be considered just like that. The
need for IT for the students and running the school should be a normal part of our operating budget. We
should figure out a way to transfer that over time into the regular operating budget. When there is bond
money, the bond money can fund that line item. When there is no bond money, it becomes a District
expense. But taking each individual project that we want to do and then taking that to the District
committee to decide whether or not that is a higher or lower priority than some other project, we just
need to have a standard. This sounds like a process that I would use for an exception report, not for a
process I would use as a standard for doing business. I propose we don’t approve it and look for an
alternative.
Rich: Has this been looked at by Tony Tortorice from IT?
Linda: Yes, Tony reports to Ron.
Rich: This restricted allocation of the Chancellor setting up the allocation covers all district IT projects or
just ones that the district is responsible for?
Ron: all. I don’t disagree with Bob. But the issue with the complexity comes into the fact that we have a
decentralized reporting structure with IT. Not all the budget with IT are within location 1, cost center
115. Now, if we are to change the organizational chart, have all IT folks report to the District IT, then we
can centralize and standardize the equipment replacement cycle at a District wide level. I think what
Bob is suggesting makes all the sense in the world. Right now we don’t have that reporting structure or a
clear overall perspective of the needs of each college from an IT perspective.
Rich: You just mentioned changing the organization structure and Tony mentioned changing the IT
Structure. That It is hard to manage IT at the four colleges and the District when you have no idea what
anybody is doing. when can we get that changed?
Bob: It is only going to change in the context of the budget. It is the money that is going to make it
happen. We have to come up with the process that makes sense for the distribution of the money and
the responsibility of how to spend that money. Whether these people respond to Tony is independent.
The fact is these are standard needs and should be standard line items. The money need to direct what
happens. The money should be divided equally.
Dr. Kenney: uVerse commercials – how our IT world is. Thanked Ron that he brought this item for us to
discuss. Opened the door to a stuffy room. At COA, we do not have a line item budget for IT. We are
always piece mewling and patching it together. 1) Do we need that? absolutely 2) do we need an
alternative revenue other than hoping that we get bond measure to replace that? Yes. We need an
ongoing budget allocation form the District. Using our budget model to equitably distribute those would
be great. Should each of the colleges have a Technology master plan? Absolutely. We should use that as
a means for guiding how we allocate and spend our money. Should we need to bring piece meal to the
DTC to say, “hey we would like to do this project.” To me, if we have a sound college tech plan
incorporated in a transparent way into the District tech plan. It has been the opposite. They need to
loosen up some of the funding that has been allocated to the colleges. But the colleges have to have
that flexibility by the use of their own planning and budget integration model to distribute and allocate
the IT funds within the college without having to be beholding to coming to the DTC then to say how
they should spend their money. Either they have the money or they don’t. The other thing on
centralization and decentralization, to me it is extremely clear that IT at Each of the colleges have their
own very unique IT needs, we need to our own IT team. We are the one that knows best the needs is at
the colleges. Have the District support our plan. To have money for the first time would be phenomenal.
Thuy: since VC Gerhard is asking for a vote on this item, I don’t think we need to do a no vote. However,
have the sentiment placed in the minutes and be communicated to the DTC. Also, piggyback on what Dr.
van Putten said or asked earlier, I am curious how this would fit into the District IT unit plan that is
required to have resource allocation, budgeting, staffing, etc. maybe there could be some coordination?
Ron: initial thought to have a discussion on it and forwarded to the DTC for evaluation review and
perhaps recommendation for a completely alternative plan. Ideal world, we would fund all of our
technology need on an annual basis. But due to scarcity of resources, that is not a possibility. Perhaps to
begin to engage the DTC in this dialogue forwarding this to them to be agendized.
Fabian: I had to step out when our server went down. Technology cannot wait for us. If a site goes
down, I have to run and fix it. I am a faculty member. We are also discussing it at the DTC. Tony is
working on the restructure. It is very complicated because of personalities… we are in huge need, for a
District like this and the technology that we need, we are way under budget. Just to compare the
number of programmers here and at UC Berkeley, we don’t have 5% of the programmers that UC
Berkeley has yet we have a larger population.
Bob: We run on money and everything follows the money. Question of virtual versus old fashion servers
which can be discussed at the DTC. We need to have enough computers so everyone can do their work.
We need to come up with a basic plan to say this is the ideal plan and to fund it the best we can and we
work towards that and make that an ongoing line item. Eventually we will have enough programmers
and technical support on the campuses. To me the issue is of who reports to whom is totally on the side.
we should be going toward a standard way in doing this just like a standard way of paying the phone bill.
Partial implementation over time? Come up with an industry standard.
Dr. Webb: are you, Bob, on the DTC? I like to recommend that this go forward to the DTC and that we
leverage all the voices in the room who has serious concerns about this. To have the committee make a
sound recommendation back to us.
Thuy: that the meeting minutes be given to the DTC. (motion)