University Technology Committee
MINUTES
September 10, 2012
Members Present:
Lance Taylor (Chair), Len Roberson (Vice Chair), Scott Bennett,
Katharine Brown, Sofia Evangelista (SG), Bruce Kavan, Mike
Kennedy, Marsha Lupi, Gerald Merckel, Julie Milich, Deb Miller,
Lauren Newton, Jim Owen, Marianne Roberts, Diana Tanner
Others Present:
Jeff Durfee, Brent Fine (SG), James George, Kathy Hughes,
Dmitriy Bond, Bill McSherry, Gordon Rakita, John Sharp
1. February Minutes
 The February minutes were voted on electronically. No corrections or
additions to the minutes, and they will stand as submitted.
2. Announcements
 None.
3. Update: Digital Asset Management System – Deb Miller
 Deb explained (for the new members) that DAMS is a platform for rich media
and will eventually replace the streaming server on campus. It will be the
place for audio and video and other rich media files to be accessed from. One
of the immediate things it will allow is to be a Blackboard for students to
submit media assignments very easily. Instructors will be able to publish
media files and make them available to students. It will allow for a very easy
publishing interface for the end user. It has very rich resources for Metadata,
tagging, etc., and the library will be working with them very closely on
implementation.
 Deb reported that Sharestream was selected. They are working on contract
language which should be resolved within a week or so. There is an
implementation plan that is drafted; once the contract goes through, we can
begin moving forward.
4. Report: Distance Learning Committee – Len Roberson
 Len announced that they had a ½ day kickoff meeting on August 27, they
welcomed several new members, and spent a majority of the time on the DL
strategic plan. They are making a last set of edits which will be shared with
the Faculty Association as an informational item. Their next meeting will be
September 27th which is the regular meeting (4th Thursday of every month).
5. Report: Campus Technology Committee - Lauren Newton
 Lauren reported that they met on September 7th , and they will have an agenda
item on the Faculty Association which is a slight change to their by-laws to
remove language that states that their chair must be on the Gang of
Technology Committee since they no longer meet. They also discussed the IT
Reorganization report and will send their comments to Gordon Rakita. They
responded to a question on standardizing scantron forms. Bruce asked about
the status of Turnitin. Lauren responded that there is not a pilot at this time
because there was an issue about money. They are checking on the status and
trying to figure out where to go with this.
6. Report: Blackboard – Deb Miller
 Deb stated that there was a significant hardware upgrade in May, and they
have seen markedly improved performance. There were a couple of blips that
were quickly taken care of. There should be faster and more reliable
performance on the system. Other happenings in May:
o Collaborate was upgraded to v11
o LO4 was upgraded – blogs, wikis, podcasting tool - and moved to a
hosted service with enhanced features
o McGraw Hill Connect integration
 August 2012:
o Several building block upgrades: CPS, Mobile Learn, Course Event
tool. We've seen great performance with a couple of minor blips
o Blackboard workshops online (CIRT)
 Coming attractions:
o Reviewing Pearson MyLab Block
o SP10- improved interface (May 2013)
 Bruce reported that there were a lot of complaints from faculty about
Blackboard downtime and that it was going in and out. Deb replied that there
was an issue where grade centers would not load and students had trouble
submitting assignments. There were some tweaks, and it is now resolved.
This new system provides better monitoring of problems.
 Mike Kennedy asked if there is any kind of audit reports that instructors can
see that capture students who have tried to submit work that failed. Deb
answered that there a couple ways to look at this:
o Any outages or problems are posted on the IT Outages page.
o In the grade center, if students submit and save and something goes
wrong, there would be an indication.
7. Report: IT Security Action Team – Jeff Durfee
 Jeff reported that there were some membership changes last year. They are
reconstituting membership now and expect to have full membership again by
next month.
8. Report: Internet Presence Committee – Scott Bennett
 Scott stated that there is not much to report except for routine maintenance
and that they will meet on an as-needed basis.
 Bill mentioned that we have substantially mobilized the CMS and there is now
a mobile presence. Dmitry reiterated that the CMS system automatically
converts your website to a mobile version. It is smart enough to detect if you
are using a mobile device or tablet. There is nothing special to be done if you
are maintaining a website; just check your website on the mobile device to
make sure it looks alright. We also have a mobile App; Blackboard wrote a
native App that works on an android or IPhone. You can go to the App Store
in ITunes or Google Play Store and look up UNF. Brent Fine asked about the
“Featured Events” calendar on the app and where it is pulling from and how to
get events put on it. Dmitriy answered that he should contact Sharon Ashton.
9. Report: IT Organizational Task Force – Taylor/Bennett
 Scott updated the status of this project. A copy of the report was sent out to
the members of the committee. This project lasted for about a year, finished
up this summer, and a report was submitted to Shari Shuman and Mark
Workman. Both sides are going through the recommendations. Lance and
Shari have been meeting with IT staff, and Len and Mark have been meeting
with their staff to find out which ones to accept, reject, move forward, how to
move forward, etc. They will move forward as they see fit. The floor was
opened to questions.
o Katharine Brown asked if there will be a public forum or discussion
outside of the IT Reorg. task force. She had just seen this report last
Friday and was interested in the process and would have liked to have
been included in the discussions. Scott answered that it would be up to
Shari and Mark as to what they want to do in that respect and what
groups they are talking to. Len stated that this group was put together
by Shari, which included internal and external members. These
recommendations are directed for a very specific part of the university.
He told Katharine that if she had a particular group in mind, to let
either him or the provost know.
o Bruce Kavan wanted to let the task force know that he believes they
did a nice job in their recommendations and involvement and should
be commended for the job that they did. Lance specified that the
thanks goes to Scott who chaired the group.
10. New Business
 Marsha Lupi presented to the group that after meeting with Lance and the
dean to talk about her college’s strategic needs, at the top of her list of items is
putting all student internship forms online. They have a lot, and right now it
requires that they be personally handed in. They did not know what the status
of this was, and Lance told them they were number 22 on the list. Marsha is
concerned about this and wants to know the outcome. Len explained that each
division was asked to create a list of strategic projects; they were then
reviewed, information was collected, they were prioritized, and then it went to
IT to combine them. It then went to the VP’s where they reviewed them to
find out what is strategic, operational and budget. Currently, they are looking
at the list that the VP’s have come up with and charged to find out what is
priority 1, 2, etc. They were looked at as direct impact to students, direct
impact to faculty, and towards the mission of Academic Affairs and the
colleges. Len received 87 requests on behalf of AA, the largest amount of
requests. They are looking at the final list and what needs to be done based on
hours of work, the size of the project and if it is so large that it is probably not
going to happen for a while, and communicating this back to everyone. This
is not solely financial, but also the amount of time needed and how many
people to do the work. Next year, this process will be done earlier to make it
part of the budget process. Marsha stated that their forms are academic forms
and directly related to students. She is not sure about lumping automation of
forms together with other divisions. Bill answered that they are only lumped
together on a technical basis and doesn’t mean that is the way they will be
addressed. Lance added that what they need is evolving and might go beyond
a simple forms processing and might not be lumped into the automation. This
was the first time doing anything like this and not tied into the budget process.
However, they learned a lot from this process, and it will be done earlier and
be more descriptive of what they are actually looking for.
Meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m. The next meeting will be held on October 8, 2012 at
10:00 a.m. in the Student Union 58W/Room 3703A.