Target 2000 Technology Team
Meeting Minutes of 05/22/96
Technology Committee
Notes of: May 22, 1996 Meeting
Present: Bill Post, Tom Welsh, Debbie McElroberts, Carolyn Dusenbury, Kay Schenk,
Jeff Bell, Frederica Shockley, Beverly Taylor
Staff: Susan Greco
1. Student Tech Fee
There is a teleconference June 12th with the Chancellor s Office staff. The C.O. currently
has a no fee proposal and will set aside $15 million a year, for two years, to be distributed
to campuses. Funds come from a 4.3% increase the Governor is giving to CSU.
Proposing $50 a year for first two years then $100 in third year. Under old rules we
would have lost 1/3 of the fee. The above is suppose to be on-going, however this won t
come to us next year but, knowing our commitment and if we are ready to roll we will
put together a proposal in June to send to the Chancellor s Office. This will be a campus
proposal but it ll also show what we are spending on campus already. Funds will be spent
best on FTE. Will know within three weeks.
Carolyn Dusenbury moved that: The Target 2000 Committee endorses the use of funds
for better Student Remote Access, for student lab upgrades, for increased help and
training in use of technology for students, and for enterprise wide e-mail. Frederica
Shockley seconded the motion.
Discussion pursued regarding the infrastructure once thousand of students are added and
actively utilizing the technology. Concern was expressed that the infrastructure will need
to be expanded in order to sustain the increased anticipated activity.
Question called, motion carried.
It was suggested that we should lobby that, campuses who are not ready, should not be
getting a piece of the fee. We are ready for a fall election, CO has stood in our way,
therefore we should get money for the A/Y.
2. Decision recap
The T2000 team has tackled a number of issues this year and it would be good to confirm
the actions taken.
Faculty Computing - A goal was set, program established, and bid is out.
Student Computing- A goal was set for assured access to computing and an area of
potential distinct advantage for Chico was identified, remote access for our students.
Win 95 - Supported a policy of upgrading existing machines only when necessary to Win
95. Agreed that initially new machines should be delivered with Win 95 with a possible
switch to Win NT as soon as Win 95 features are included.
E-Mail - Supported a strategy of internet mail for the campus based on IMAP 4 protocol.
Universal Email and document transmission was seen as a high priority for the campus.
Such an E-mail system could run $130,000 a year for several years. Discussion followed
regarding the use of this large of an expenditure versus updating student computer labs
also a recognized campus need.
Library System - Supported the strategy of moving to a new integrated information
system for the library that is web based.
Classroom Technology - supported the proposal that as a campus wide program we do
the following: focus on enhanced classrooms with just data/video projection, VCRs, and
networking. Some portables available through IMC, and Departments responsible for
computers and portable projection equipment. Master classrooms project needs to be
completed over time, including the upgrade of existing master classrooms (e.g. dimmers,
LCD projectors)
Committee members were asked to provide any feedback to the above to Bill Post by
next Tuesday.
3. Oracle
Adoption of Oracle as the campus standard DBMS: It is time to consider Oracle as the
standard for campus. The Technology Committee needs to come to a consensus on this
recommendation. The committee generally agreed to Oracle as the enterprisewide DBMS
standard although there was a suggestion that we consider surveying the campus
community.
This decision would not preclude desk top or local database applications using other
DBMS software such as ProFile?. May survey campus community.
4. EASE
The IBM was purchased on a seven year contract with annual payments of $401,000. The
final payment was made last fall. Therefore, the question was raised as to how the
$401,000 will be spend in the future. A document was distributed (which has been
distributed to the Deans) which reflect the needs for these funds. Primarily, these funds
still need to go into the platform.
There is a major operating upgrade which must be done this year. If this is not done there
will be NO support from anyone, not on FAS, not anything. We have to continue at best
to run institutional operations while looking to future possibilities for alternative systems.
There is not an alternative available today. Development work at LA State is exciting.
Folks were reminded that it would take three years before any migration to a different
computing platform could happen. It took five years to migrate off the Cyber to the IMB.
These moves do not happen overnight. Moves have to be systematic. What do other CSU
campuses use? SIMMS application used by 3-4 campuses.
Two issues:
1. Moving off IBM hardware
2. A different data base system (SIS+)
In early June consultants will be coming on campus to help review our campus needs.
Bob Leara, one of the consultants, has been working with CSU, Hayward for two years.
Hayward has consolidated with SLO, we want Leara to give us objective feedback.
WEB: Continued support of Chico Web development. Web needs to be the interface of
choice.