University of Minnesota

Institute of Technology

 

Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,

May 8, 2003

3:35 p.m., Physics 133

 

Present: Rahul Akolkar (ME), John Baxter (Math), Kit Bingham (Stat), Evan Bollig (ITSB), Tom Chase (ME), Lynn Cross (BAS program), Tracy DeLaney (Astro), John Hall (Math), Peter Hudleston (IT Stud Aff), Phil Kachelmyer (ADCS), Wonsuck Kim (Geol), Satish Kumar (CEMS), Jerry Larson (ADCS), Larry LeMay (ADCS),  Jim MacDonald (ITLabs & CSciE), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Mark Nicosia (BME), Karen Swanberg (Geol)

 

 

1)                  Status Reports from CSciE and ADCS

 

No issues reported. 

 

 

2)                  Discussion of Management Proposals from ADCS and CSE for 2003-04

 

The proposals represent continuation of management as in the past year, with a few minor changes. MacDonald noted that he had changed the fractional time for student workers from 70% to 50%, and changed the number of students from 6 to 8.  This represents a slight drop in total student effort.  He explained that the previous percentage reflected the fact that students worked longer and later hours for ITICC than for the department.  Now, the hours and demands on them from ITICC and from the department are roughly equal, and so a 50:50 split in effort is appropriate.

 

Larson noted that there is a slight decrease in total number of lab consultant hours in the 2003-04 budget compared to 2002-03, reflecting the availability of the Walter 103 lab for IT student users in the late night hours.  Also technical support is being decreased by 0.1 FTE.

 

MacDonald and Larson both noted that the budgets for management are less in 2003-04 than in 2002-03 – reflecting the above changes and the fact that salaries of all university employees are being frozen and that there will be a decrease in employee benefits.

 

Chase inquired how the planned reduction in staffing the labs with the introduction of camera surveillance is reflected in the budget – which could be expected as we follow the recommendations of the subcommittee report made earlier in the year.  Hudleston said it has not been factored in.  The budgets as presented represent maximum cost to ITICC.  The consultants are paid for the hours worked, and that as plans are implemented and lab consultant hours decline, the hours will go down and the charges drop. This will show up as a budget surplus at the end of the year. He noted that each of the past few years the actual cost of the ADCS management has been less than the budgeted amount because the lab consultant hours not met the budgeted number.  Larson pointed out that the actual charge to ADCS in 2002-03 was about $27,000 less than that budgeted.

 

Bingham asked about the IRS (internal revenue sharing) tax in the ADCS proposal.  Is this something that is appropriately charged to students?  Chase reminded the committee that when the ITICC fee was initiated it was promised that all the revenue would go to supporting computing.  Hudleston noted that much had changed in the way funding in the university has changed since ITICC was established.  All tuition revenue now goes to the colleges, and the only way central administration can gain flexibility in the distribution of university resources is by taxing the colleges and other units (and this is the reason for the IRS).  Baxter said that perhaps the tax should be viewed as part of the cost of doing business – a legitimate cost ADCS has to bear and thus to be included in the cost of service. There is also the question of whether the tax is being imposed more than once.  Hudleston said he would clarify how the tax is applied and would report back to ITICC in the fall. The proposal will be presented to ITICC for a vote as is, with the understanding that the IRS tax needs clarification.

 

Hudleston informed the committee that the reduction in support from the Instructional Equipment funds - due to budget cutbacks -  will not be as great as he had previously reported.  There will be a 12% cut, which amounts to $60,000.  However, the college will now pay the network connection charges for the labs, which is an approximately equal amount.  This is going into effect in the current fiscal year.

 

Hudleston said he would conduct an e-mail vote on these proposals following the meeting.

 

4)         Other Business

 

Hudleston said he had received only about half the eligible votes on the lab improvements for 2003-04.  He urged anyone who had not yet voted to do so as soon as possible.

 

Swanberg reported on the discussion of the ad hoc committee on the status of wireless access in IT public spaces.  The issue is whether wireless access is still needed in any of this space, and if so, whether or not ITICC should be responsible for seeing that such access is provided.  Much of the space in the atrium area of the EE/CS building is covered by ITICC wireless access.  Swanberg wondered whether OIT should be invited to provide additional access points, since some users of this space are not IT students and unable to use the ITICC-provided wireless access.  MacDonald said that, if additional wireless access were provided, he would be happy to work with OIT to make sure there was no interference between the two systems. There was some discussion about the 6th floor public space in EE/CS, which does not now have wireless access.  MacDonald said this space had been designed as a faculty lounge – although it is not used as such – and in fact he never sees anyone using the space. Hudleston said that provision of wireless access to non-IT students was not ITICC’s responsibility. If people wish to pursue this on their own they are welcome to do so.