Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Present: Mike Orkin (Chair), Jo Ann Phillips (Co-Chair, Researcher), Fabian Banga (Co-Chair, Ed Tech Coord, Berkeley Fac Rep) Joshua Boatwright (Berkeley Library), Manny T. Uy ( Alameda Fac Rep), Sami Ali (Alameda Tech Rep), Eric Gravenberg (Merritt Tech Rep), Lilia Celhay (Laney Tech Rep), Ron Perez (Merritt Tech Rep), Simon Chan (Merritt Tech Rep), Alexis Alexander (Dist Web Coord, Merritt Ed Tech Coord), Trulie Thompson (Laney Ed Tech Coord, Alameda Matriculation Counselor), Jannett Jackson (Alameda Interim President) Guests: Joseph Bielanski (PBC), Gary Perkins (Alameda Dean of Instruction) Facilitator/Recorder: Rebecca Kenney (Facilitator), Karolyn van Putten (Recorder), Theresa Rumjahn (Note Taker) Absent: Janet Cragin (Tech Serv Dir), Bryan Gibbs (Berkeley Tech Rep), Minh Lam (Assoc Vice Chancellor of IT), Ed Loretto (Smart Classroom Rep, Alameda Ed Tech Coord), David Mitchell (Laney Fac Rep) Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Meeting Called to Order I. Agenda Review and Review of Minutes from Oct. 1, 2010 Meeting Mike Orkin/ Rebecca Kenney 8:30 am II. IT Report: Issues, Staffing Minh Lam III. IT Strategic Plan Update Minh Lam IV. Reports from College Technology Committees 8:38 am Discussion Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?) 8:30 am This meeting is starting early due to the Smart Classroom meeting at 10:30 am in the same room. The Oct. 1, 2010, Minutes are on the website (at http://eperalta.org/wp/pbi/files/2010/04/TechCom_10-1-2010_minutes_rev2.doc). Eric Gravenberg made a motion to approve the Oct. 1, 2010, minutes. Seconded by Josh Boatright. (Not all members present yet.) Postponed. (Minh Lam not present due to emergency IT issues). Mike Orkin: Expressed much concern for absence of any messages about absence. Postponed. (Minh Lam not present due to emergency IT issues). Lilia Celhay: At Laney’s last Tech Comm meeting, went over Smart Classroom drawings and room configurations, solicited feedback. Some rooms have difficulties - these will be discussed with the project manager. Training and standards for Smart Classrooms are needed - AV staff should be involved in these meetings since they will be responding to staff requests (e.g., need phone contacts, who will respond). Laney is now laying out a plan for training and standards as they move from Phase I to Phase II. Page 1 of 11 MOTION (re: Item I): Approve the Minutes of October 1, 2010. Yes: 7 No: 0 Abst: 0 MOTION PASSED Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Discussion Discussion (Laney): A. Rebecca Kenney: Suggest we collaborate and share training and standards across the campuses so we do not re-invent the wheel. B. Alexis Alexander: Merritt has a different vendor for some reason, since they are getting mostly Level 1 classrooms; training needs may be different. Jo Ann Phillips: Why does Merritt have a different vendor? We want to make sure we have the same equipment and the vendors are on the same page. Alexis: Olivia (Rocha) met with all of us, so there should be no problem with consistent equipment and training. Rebecca Kenney: Merritt should check with Olivia. C. Lilia Celhay: Laney will have one room completed in January that can serve as the model. Lilia will look into having this room open for other campuses to view. Laney is planning for some training on professional development days. Mike Orkin: At the last meeting, we agreed to have each college give its Technology Plan to Minh Lam and IT for incorporation and to support the IT Strategic Plan. For the record, Laney has submitted their Technology Plan to help IT. According to our schedule, Minh was to have a Strategic Plan update for today’s (Nov. 5th) meeting so we could review it and pass it on to Joseph Bielanski for the PBC’s Dec. 10th meeting. Status of other campuses? Jo Ann Phillips: There are only half the committee members here today, so it will be difficult to review that document if we had it. Rebecca Kenney: In terms of critical importance of the technology master plan, we need input for integration by college and District. As facilitator, I feel we may need to make sure that the Reps from each college come to an emergency meeting later in the month, because we need to do this work today for December’s meeting. Mike Orkin: Hold meeting if there is a report to vet. [Note: The following reports were presented after part of Agenda Item IV began] Rebecca Kenney: Could you (Manny Uy or Sami Ali) send the Alameda Technology Plan to Dr. Orkin? Mike Orkin: We can get it on the College of Alameda’s website; I can download it. Page 2 of 11 Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?) Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Discussion Sammy Ali: Alameda’s Tech Comm Report – Met yesterday with Olivia (Rocha) and the design engineers. Faculty was involved; they gave input on layout and design of Smart Classrooms. We came to agreements; will sign off on the whole thing. Alexis Alexander: At Merritt, we are moving forward with the website; it will be handed off this Tuesday; we are setting up training. We implemented Open Scholar for faculty development pages. We have been meeting about Smart Classrooms; already have a plan and a schedule for things to happen and to meet with the VPI. Construction starts next week, over break and through February. Eric Gravenberg: Merritt is on target with Smart Classrooms. We have 2 interns to help on website but no webmaster. A lot of the credit goes to Alexis. Fabian Banga: (since there is no Tech Rep here from Berkeley). I am a little confused about the Tech Plan, because we are working on the plan for next year. Tech Comm is working on: 1) creating a rubric to help us decide how to allocate technology resources to faculty - we can share this with other campuses. 2) Smart Classrooms -since all of BCC’s classrooms are Level I (due to the new building), our emphasis is on Level 3 installation which is in progress. 3) The website is done (since summer). We are moving to have a permanent webmaster on campus. 4) We have 2 student assistants providing internal support for BCC faculty and students in distance ed classes. Mike Orkin: This committee agreed to review Tech Plans today. Fabian Banga: BCC will have its Tech Plan done at the end of Dec., and the official report will be presented in Feb. to the Round Table. But we can bring an unofficial plan although our final tech plan is always done in Dec. Jo Ann Phillips: In the timeline of the general committee, this committee is where colleges present their Tech Plan materials. Joseph Bielanski: Would like to have the college technology plans and IT Strategic Plan for the PBC Dec. 10th meeting. Rebecca Kenney: Let’s continue with the Alameda Tech Comm Report. Page 3 of 11 Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?) Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Discussion Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?) [Note: Manny Uy previously read in the 5 motions contained in Gary Perkins’ Oct. 29, 2010 email; copies were distributed to the District Tech Committee. Gary Perkins resolved to read them into the minutes again and have a proper discussion.] Motion #1 (read by Gary Perkins): Whereas, all campus instructional computers are scheduled to be refreshed in 2011. Therefore, we request confirmation of availability of funds and a timeline for implementation. Manny Uy made a motion to accept COA’s Motion #1, seconded by Eric Gravenberg. Motion #1 Discussion: There was general discussion about whether or not this Technology Committee could act on these motions for several reasons: a) The Technology Committee is not in the position to approve or disprove or confirm funding for any project. It could be a Planning and Budget issue. b) The Technology Committee reviews issues and projects, and sends them forward to the next level of committees of the PBC. c) The Technology Committee can support and make recommendations. d) The Smart Classroom funding should already have been allocated by the District (previous budgets, Measure A, and sources identified by GSA and IT). But Jannett Jackson recalled that Dr. Ikharo asked Minh Lam to verify that funds are there (note: neither Dr. Ikharo nor Mr. Lam were in attendance today). e) Refresh monies have already been approved for 2011.But where are refresh monies coming from (college’s budget or the District’s budget)? Manny Uy made a revised motion stating that the Dist Tech Comm supports Motion #1 put forward by College of Alameda, as read by Gary Perkins above, and that the Dist Tech Comm expresses its support for ensuring that funding is available to College of Alameda for Motion #1 (refreshing campus instructional computers in 2011) and for similar needs from the other three colleges. Eric Gravenberg seconded. Motion #2 (read by Gary Perkins): Whereas, local COA campus has not identified streaming video as a high priority. Whereas, the District is planning to spend significant funds on a system that has been identified as a priority in our campus Page 4 of 11 Need to find out where funding for 2011 refresh is coming from. MOTION (re: Item IV-COA Motion #1): The District Techology Committee supports Motion #1passed by the College of Alameda Technology Meeting on 10/14/10, and expresses its support for ensuring that funding is available to College of Alameda for Motion #1, and for similar needs from the other three colleges. Yes: All (16) No: 0 Abst: 0 MOTION PASSED Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Discussion planning documents. Therefore, the COA Tech Committee recommends that the funds identified for COA’s portion of the project be distributed to the college in order to fund our top IT needs, as identified in our college planning documents. (These documents are identified on the COA website.) Manny Uy: made a motion on COA’s Motion #2, seconded by Jannet Jackson, but it was tabled by Jannet after the discussion below. Motion #2 Discussion: f) Gary Perkins: We understood from Dr. Ikharo’s presentation that streaming video would be put on all campuses. But this is not a priority on our campus and we do not want to spend money on that until our Tech Comm has reviewed it. We may want to spend the money on other priority items at Alameda, and we want to be able to do that. g) Mike Orkin: Should the Dist Technology Comm be supporting this or even commenting on this COA issue? There already has been a lot of discussion over the last 2 years and among the appropriate groups about streaming videos. Everyone has been a part of this discussion. But it up-ends the process for allocating funds for Smart Classrooms among the other colleges. h) Jannett Jackson: (Provided background) This started at least 2 years ago when the Smart Classroom templates were developed by WLC. The colleges wanted to be able to determine their own college’s needs. They went out to bid for all campuses together, but not per each campus’ Tech Plan. So, if COA chooses not to get something in that bid now, I don’t know what that does to the whole bid. It could stop other campuses from getting this bid. COA does not want to be penalized by not being able to get their chunk of money. If the money gets redistributed to other campuses, then COA loses out. i) Lilia Celhay: Laney has the same situation. We want a combination in one room, but this does not adhere to the list of equipment for that Level. We had negotiations for that one room. But COA has a different issue. GSA will extend one Level 3 room to each campus even if you don’t have it in your plan. It seems COA doesn’t want the Level 3 but they want the funds distributed to them. j) Jo Ann Phillips: So none of the other colleges want Level 3 rooms? Everyone said no (meaning yes they want Level 3 rooms). Karolyn van Putten: Laney had Page 5 of 11 Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?) Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Discussion already planned for Level 2 or 3. Dr. Ikharo agreed to supplement that to a Level 3 at all campuses. So that’s what happened. k) Fabian Banga: BCC already has a Level 3 in our plan (for multimedia arts and distance ed). Agree that we do not have Level 3 classrooms if we do not have faculty to teach in that technology. This is a District project, so they want to use some of their resources for all campuses. BCC can use the money for something else. Level 2 includes Level 1, and Level 3 includes Level 2. Jannett Jackson: Table this discussion and Motion #2 until we have talked to Dr. Ikharo separately and then bring this item back. Motion #3 (read by Gary Perkins): Whereas, the COA Technology Committee and college technology planning documents (such as the College Tech Plan, unit plans and Library Tech Plan) have not been consulted in the development of the District IT Plan. Therefore, the COA Technology Committee recommends that the District IT plan be revised to incorporate the college IT plan and needs. Manny Uy moved to accept this motion. Fabian Banga seconded. Motion #3 Discussion: l) Mike Orkin: This is absolutely appropriate for this Tech Comm. m) Jo Ann Phillips: I do not want to see the colleges’ tech plans added as addendum to the District IT plan. Those with District-wide issues of importance should be incorporated into the District-wide Plan. n) Jannett Jackson: Our SMT is meeting about the IT Plan, and the District is soliciting input. Do we know anyone to assist us in writing the Tech Plan for District-wide? The current one does not incorporate any of colleges’ plans. Also, college and district portions need to be complementary. There are issues coming up (re storage of video capturing, video conferencing) still to be flushed out. o) Trulie Thompson: Another example is Laney’s Tech Plan from Distance Ed Coordinator’s use. Some things to put in are for technical support. We need District support and acknowledgement that this is needed. It is not in there now. p) Rebecca Kenney: It is important to define the process for incorporating all 4 colleges’ Tech Plans into the IT Plan. It is shared-governance. Page 6 of 11 Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?) MOTION (re: Item IV-COA Motion #2): The District Technology Committee supports the COA recommendation that funds for streaming media be redistributed to COA for other top IT needs as identified in COA’s college planning documents. No Vote MOTION WAS TABLED Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Discussion q) Karolyn van Putten: Should this go to the PBC or to the Education Comm or all three committees? It should be agendized for action. Manny Uy put forward a revised motion (for COA Motion #3) recommending that the District IT Plan should be revised to incorporate all four colleges’ Technology Plans. Motion #3 should be revised to state that the District Technology Committee (and not the COA Technology Committee) should do the recommending. Motion #4 (Read by Gary Perkins): Whereas, in the past, the District was responsible for funding the library databases and due to a cut to categorical funding the campuses are now being expected to fund the databases. Whereas, so many of our students rely on the library article databases for their research needs. Therefore, the College [note – changed from District] Technology Committee recommends that the District create a line item for the Library Databases and consider it an on-going yearly expense. Motion #4 Discussion (before Motion): r) Karolyn van Putten: This would have the District create a line item for Library databases and consider it an on-going yearly expense. Gary Perkins: It never stood out as a line item. We paid it because there was a need (like a Microsoft license) because it affects all colleges. It should be ongoing and expected that the District would pick up the costs. s) Mike Orkin: Do we have the representation to properly discuss this? t) Josh Boatright: I represent the librarians. All the libraries are behind this. u) Jannett Jackson: As the former dean overseeing the library, I know that TTIP funds were allocated at the state level because the librarians (CCL, Lark) lobbied for it and for computers. They would never get instructional equipment monies otherwise. It was a line item on TTIP funds. That funding went away 4 years ago, and at that time the District distributed the TTIP funds. IT picked up costs for a year or two. But now if the colleges want it they have to build it into their own budgets. This is done in Measure A, but Berkeley didn’t put in for Measure A funds and they don’t have any money for library databases. Now all the colleges are running out of Measure A funds, but they really need these databases. This should go to the College Planning Committee for recommendation. Page 7 of 11 Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?) MOTION (re: Item IV-COA Motion #3): The District Technology Committee recommends that the District IT Plan be revised to incorporate all four colleges’ Technology Plans, and that this recommenddation be agendized for action at the District Wide Education Committee and the District Wide Facilities Committee meetings. Yes: All (16) No: 0 Abst: 0 MOTION PASSED Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Discussion v) Jo Ann Phillips: Last year we supported librarians in getting their new databases. Josh Boatright: That was just the library cataloging database. We’re talking about the databases that give you access to journals, online materials, articles, books, 24/7 access for distance ed, disabled, and it’s an accreditation issue. w) Fabian Banga: Last year, at the first Tech Comm meeting, BCC made the same recommendation. Centralizing this technology would benefit everybody and would come from Measure A funds. Discussion with Minh Lam went nowhere. Jannett Jackson: We had the same experience at COA. We need someone to champion this. x) Joseph Bielanski: This could be agendized for action at the Planning and Budget Council meeting on Nov. 19th. Manny Uy moved that the Dist Tech Comm recommends that the District create a line item for all library databases and that this be considered an ongoing yearly expense, and that this be agendized for action at the Nov. 19th PBC meeting. Seconded by Mike Orkin. Motion #5 (read in by Gary Perkins): So moved that the motions approved at the Oct. 14 meeting of the COA Tech Committee be sent to the District Technology Committee, District Facilities Committee, District Education Committee and Budget and Planning Committee. Motion #5 Discussion: y) Gary Perkins: All of these need to be agendized for action. Motion #5 is a recommendation that we are moving forward with all committees. Now who carries it forward from here? z) General discussion about process and committees: Motion #1 – Need Minh Lam to verify that funds are available before carrying this forward. Motion #2 – Tabled Motion #3 – Agendize for action at next Education Committee Motion #4 – Agendize for action at Nov. 19th PBC meeting Motion #5 – To make sure that all motions have a process and are carried Page 8 of 11 Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?) MOTION (re Item IVCOA Motion #4): The District Technology Committee recommends that the District create a line item for all library databases and that this be an ongoing yearly expense, and that this recommendation be agendized for action at the Nov. 19th PBC meeting. Yes: All (16) No: 0 Abst: 0 MOTION PASSED Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Discussion forward and go to all committees. Mike Orkin will make sure these motions go forward to all the committees. Karolyn van Putten will attend the PBC meeting as a representative of both the Technology Committee and the PBC; she will be prepared to read from a summary of actions from this committee and to comment on our discussions. aa) Gary Perkins: Gave thanks to Mike Orkin and the District Technology Committee from COA Tech Comm for support of COA’s motions. V. Report on Online Counseling Pilot at COA Trulie Thompson 10:30am [Note: Heard Item VI Smart Classrooms while computer was set up] Trulie Thompson gave a demonstration of the COA online counseling website, FAQs and Intake Form available now for online students who cannot come in to the campus to meet with a Counselor. The website is at http://counselingcoa.wordpress.com/e-counseling/. This is the Spring 2011 pilot eCounseling project, will take it District Wide after task force review. Will need further resources. Have shared it with all counselors at Dept. meetings, gotten feedback and at District Wide meetings. She also read from an 11/4/2010 email from Kerry Compton to Rebecca Kenney, Fabian Banga, and Michael Orkin. Everyone gave her a round of applause and were very complementary on the successful work she has done to make the materials available to students. Mike Orkin: As chair, thank you, Trulie. We talked about this last month, and now it is done. This is the kind of action we can all be doing. VI. Smart Classroom Updaate = PC-MAC Computers Lilia Celhay 10:20 am Lilia Celhay: On Oct. 11th, Henry dos Santos from Apple discussed various Mac mini options with the Smart Classroom group, various committee members, and other staff. Invitations sent to all campuses Merritt said they did not receive any, so no one from Merritt attended). The Apple rep recommended iMacs instead of Mac minis, based on the Smart Classroom configuration and needs. The Intel processor has dual-boot capability, runs faster than PCs (speed and versatility); more flexible (can run both PC and Mac programs concurrently), has low profile and low energy, can be booted on a PC platform, can be mounted and locked on a bracket on the table (for security), and allows monitor to tilt at different angles. Training, catering can be Page 9 of 11 Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?) Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Discussion Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?) provided; also extend to other campuses; will train IT staff not familiar with Macs. Mike Orkin: Have heard from several people that Macs using PC software has not been satisfactory. Don’t know what IT’s position is, but they may not be very happy supporting Macs at this time. Karolyn van Putten: Most of the software we use is Office Suite. Not difficult to use on Macs. The precise concern for Smart Classrooms is for dual boot on both PC and Mac. Manny Uy: Mac platform has resurgence, however, for the District’s future, we should renew our commitment for PC platform because it is the platform of choice. This doesn’t mean we forbid Mac platform, but we should emphasize PC because it costs money to support the systems. Suggest a motion to recommit support for PC platform. No second, motion dies. Jannett Jackson: It’s really up to the different campus. COA is committed to PCs. Even though there is dual boot, it is a different operating system, so there is need for different technical support. No one on staff at District or COA level has enough of Mac savvy to troubleshoot problems. Other: Mike Orkin: I am very frustrated that neither Minh Lam nor Janet Cragin or other IT are here. We know there are emergencies but someone should have notified us. We should have a motion about participation from IT. Jannett Jackson: Made a motion for the Dist Tech Comm to reaffirm its commitment. Seconded by Mike Orkin. Page 10 of 11 MOTION: The District Technology Committee reaffirms its commitment to the students and staff of the Peralta Community College District, and in its efforts to move its technology forward requires full participation from the District IT at District Technology Committee meetings to fulfill its mission. Yes: 16, No: 0, Abst: 0 MOTION PASSED Peralta Community College District PBIM – District Technology Committee - Meeting Minutes District Board Room November 5, 2010 – 8:30am – 10:30am Agenda Item and Presenter(s) Discussion Next Month: Future Agenda Items: Adjournment: 10:35 am Next meeting: December 3, 2010 Minutes taken: Theresa Rumjahn Attachments: Agenda for November 5, 2010 – PBIM District Technology Committee Important Motions Passed at COA Technology Meeting – Gary Perkins, 10/29/2010 email Counseling of on-line students – Kerry Compton, 11/4/2010 email Page 11 of 11 Follow-up Action Decisions (Shared Agreement/ Resolved/Unresolved?)