Academic Technology Committee Meeting Minutes
3 December 2009
The Academic Technology Committee is a sub-committee of
Communications 305
the College Technology Committee and the Academic Senate
12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
that focuses on the academic technology needs of the college.
Jim Noyes 
Virginia Rapp 
John Wagstaff 
Donald Treat 
Donna Post 
Dick Barton
Steve Cocca
Alice Grigsby 
Dwayne Hayden
Pete Marcoux
Noreth Men 
Dave Murphy 
Stephanie Rodriguez
Howard Story
Ralph Taylor 
Michael Wynne
(A  indicates that the committee member was present.)
The meeting became a discussion of the status of technology on campus, and the role of the
Academic Technology Committee (ATC), especially what the ATC can effectively do in the
current budgetary and organizational environment (in which many technology decisions are
decentralized).
In the past, the ATC was a forum in which faculty prioritized academic technology and directed
the use of funds towards these priorities. Now, the ATC plays a purely advisory role, and can
merely try to get attention for issues like:
 There is no regular budget item to purchase and maintain academic software
(the software needed to teach courses: no software, no course).
 El Camino College (ECC) does not have enough staff to maintain the technology
that we have.
 Faculty laptops are out-of-warranty and there are no replacement parts to repair them,
yet faculty are required to do more and more work on their computers (e.g., active
enrollment, grades, committee communication).
Another example is the greater use of bond money and grants to purchase technology.
Committee members agreed that it makes little sense to purchase computers and other items with
bond money, since the operational lifetimes of the computers are far shorter than the timeframe
for paying off the bond. The availability of funds for technology via grants and the bond has
encouraged the growth of technology on campus, but there are not enough staff on campus to
maintain it or there is not funding for replacement parts to maintain it, so it will likely have a
shorter-than-average lifespan. Because of more frequent breakdowns, longer repair times, and
no funds to regularly replace technology at the end of its lifespan, faculty members will not make
the technology a central part of their courses (they cannot rely on it), further reducing the
technology’s cost effectiveness.
A recent example of this phenomenon is the use of SEED and STEM grants to purchase “mobile
computer labs,” laptop computers on rolling mobile racks. Information and Technology Services
(ITS) has not been given additional funds to maintain these computers, which are likely to have
shorter-than-average lifetimes due to being shaken and jostled as they are rolled between
buildings. The racks are heavy and large, so they cannot be used in classrooms above the ground
floor and require multiple people to move them (typically students are enlisted, and committee
members worried that they could strain themselves and become injured, as faculty have done
with A/V carts in the past). In addition, if all of the laptops link to the wireless network at one
time, they will use a large amount of bandwidth, slowing down access to the internet for the
“mobile lab” and all other local users.
Several strategies for addressing these concerns were suggested and discussed.
John Wagstaff, director of ITS, is planning on replacing ECC staff computers with “virtual”
machines, workstations run from centralized servers which can be maintained and updated much
more quickly and easily than many individual machines. A prototype project has been running
in the library for a couple of years and has been largely successful, though problems include
slow-running workstations when there are many users and students cannot use the latest flash
drives with the workstations.
To plan and budget effectively, ECC needs a “snapshot of technology” on the campus, much like
the survey of computer labs conducted by ITS a few years ago. Keeping an inventory of our
technology and its use needs to be done regularly, perhaps as part of an annual “the-state-oftechnology-on-campus” report.
To maintain up-to-date knowledge of the technology on campus, communication is essential, and
here the ATC can play an important role in developing effective procedures. At the meeting, we
discussed the need for better communication between ITS and the divisions. The divisions
develop curriculum that require technology but ITS does not receive information about future
needs until late in the process. For example, recently ITS learned that Industry and Technology
faculty wanted to use new, up-to-date software in their courses, but had to tell them that the
software will not run on the computers in their labs; they need new computers to implement the
new curriculum. Issues discussed included which curriculum forms should be sent to ITS, and
how ITS should communicate with the divisions about planning for the use of technology and
what do when and if the technology breaks down (e.g., how it will be replaced).
In the recent past, decision-making related to technology was given to the divisions, but
improving communication and making efficient use of limited resources will probably require recentralization of more decision-making in places like ITS and the ATC. An example of this is
academic software: the ATC developed a list of academic software needs; the divisions send new
and updated information and requests to ITS, which maintains the master software list. Some
kind of centralized forum like the ATC is needed to establish and balance priorities (e.g.,
maintaining curriculum, supporting instruction) with limited resources like facilities (power,
space, etc.), ITS staff, and funding for regularly replacing aging technology. A centralized
forum like the ATC is a place where faculty can learn about the needs of other parts of campus,
focus on the “big picture” and identify core needs, consider consequences (benefits and costs) to
all parts of the campus, and find ways to share resources and look for efficiencies.
In the meantime, it is worth reiterating the following conclusion of the ATC: Until we can afford
to maintain and regularly replace the technology that we already have on campus, we should be
cautious about bringing new technology to ECC.
Submitted by Jim Noyes