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?)