University of Minnesota

Institute of Technology

Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,

April 29, 2004

3:35 p.m., 133 Physics

Present: Bill Arnold (CE), John Baxter (Math), Tracy DeLaney (Astro), Peter Hudleston (IT Dean’s Office), Phil Kachelmyer (ADCS), Kent Kirkby (Geol), Jerry Larson (ADCS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), James Maatman (ITSB), Jim MacDonald (CSci/IT Labs), Kent Mann (Chem), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Justin Revenaugh (Geol), Jonathan Rogness (Math), Roger Rusack (Phys), Ted Scott (Geol), Karen Swanberg (Geol), Ben VanderSluis (ME), Lucas Veverka (ITSB)

1) Lab management proposals from CSci and ADCS

MacDonald handed out copies of the proposed management contracts for 2004-2005. He noted that the proposal from Computer Science and Engineering involves the same effort as in the past. The bottom line reflects a 2.51% salary increase for full-time employees. It also reflects increases in fringe benefits of 4.84% for Civil Service and 3.14% for P&A employees. All are university-prescribed increases for employees for FY05. There were questions about the number of regular staff employed (The 4 FTE represent 8 individuals, shared between IT Labs and the Computer Science & Engineering department) and the number of computers in the labs [see the minutes of 3/25/04 for this].

Larson presented the proposed contract for ADCS. He reported that the budget is almost $47,000 smaller than that for FY04. This is due to significant reduction in hours of lab consultants following installation of the security cameras. There is also a modest reduction in amount of support staff time. Larson also noted that the actual expenditures for FY04 had been much less than the budgeted amount (by about $68,000) due to reduction in lab consultant hours already put into effect this year. This represents a net savings to ITICC.

Questions were asked about the sharing of management responsibilities between CSE and ADCS. MacDonald said that CSE is responsible for the Unix side of the labs – generating accounts and account management, installing and maintaining hardware software, data and network security, back-up, phone help, etc., and ADCS is responsible for managing Windows and general lab management, overseeing setting of lab hours, hiring of consultants and lab supplies, etc.. Also CSE shares the management of the Windows servers and support access to UNIX home directories for Windows users. There has been some convergence of responsibilities over time, since user accounts became established on the Windows machines (Windows NT).

MacDonald noted that the current sharing of effort had been in place since near the beginning of IT labs. Initially, ADCS ran the whole operation, but management of the Unix machines was switched to CSciE, who seemed better positioned to provide this support. Hudleston said that overall the staffing levels followed norms set by peer institutions in the Big 10, and that there was regular communication among computer technical support managers in the Big 10 engineering colleges.

Hudleston said that the management proposals would be brought back to ITICC for final discussion and voting at the next meeting.

2) Lower Division computing - collective "maintenance" proposal

Hudleston thanked the subcommittee chaired by Baxter for producing a combined proposal for maintaining existing instructional computing facilities in the introductory labs in the science departments. He noted that Mathematics is not included in the proposal because the one facility utilized by Math (Lind 24), in conjunction with IT Labs, is on a replacement cycle that puts it outside the next 3 year period.

Hudleston explained that he had suggested to the Baxter subcommittee that, as a guideline, the maintenance of existing facilities should not exceed about $400,000 per year, which is roughly the amount per year spent on establishing the facilities over the last six years. He noted that the revised proposals approved by the Baxter subcommittee amounted to just over $400,000 per year. This leaves about $100,000 per year for new initiatives.

Each departmental faculty representative (except Astronomy, with no faculty representative present ) briefly outlined their proposals. These in all cases involve replacement of hardware on the normal 4-year cycle, and some software improvement and maintenance reflected in some personnel costs. (In the case of Astronomy there are only software development and lab improvement costs.)

3) Lower Division computing – new initiatives

Hudleston noted that the total sum requested for new initiatives – from chemistry, geology and physics - is about $80,000 more than the expected allocation. Each department gave a brief presentation of its proposal.

Chemistry’s proposal is to request 75% of the salary of the manager for its Computer Aided Instruction facility built up over the past six years. This is a cost that the department feels it is unable to support properly as a result of budget cuts.

Geology is seeking funds to extend its innovations in three-dimensional visualization in geology labs by creating new educational materials for using maps and linking physical samples to other sources of information electronically. This support leverages support to the department from a federal FIPSE grant.

Physics is proposing funds for the development and implementation of simulator programs for physics labs. The simulations allow students to explore effects of varying parameters normally fixed in physical experiments. This extends what had been a trial initiative started with past support from ITICC.

There was considerable discussion on the nature of support for personnel that might be requested or allowed under the ITICC guidelines. Hudleston clarified that ITICC policy has always disallowed any use of ITICC Upper Division funds for paying staff support in the departments. The situation with Lower Division funds is different. Support for staff time in developing software and implementation of the projects has been allowed in the three-year cycles of support for lower division instructional computing initiatives. The initial guidelines developed in 1998 state, “Costs that will in general be allowed for are: A) those associated with the implementation of computer-aided instruction in the laboratory and B) the implementation of lower division computer classrooms.” Implicit in this is that some personnel costs are allowed to achieve these ends. In revised form, approved this year, the guidelines state, “Costs that will in general be allowed for any new initiatives are computer hardware, software and effort for implementation.” [In addition, regarding maintenance of existing teaching laboratories, the revised guidelines state, “Items that may be included in these plans are replacement hardware, software upgrades and personnel support to ensure the effective operation of computer aided instruction in the teaching laboratories.”]

It was clear from the discussion that the three departments presenting proposals had differing interpretations of these guidelines. Hudleston said he considered the basic philosophy behind using funds for staff support had not changed, but that what had been implicit is now explicit. He recognized that there was some fuzziness in distinguishing support for software development and maintenance from regular lab maintenance.

Chemistry’s proposal represents a significant departure from past practice, and Hudleston said he was not comfortable with proceeding given such wide differences of opinion in how the guidelines are to be interpreted He wanted a review of the situation and clarification of what was allowable and what was not allowable. Given the lack of time to do this, this would likely mean delaying review of proposals until the fall. Rusack suggested proceeding with proposal review on the basis of one year and then considering the issue of interpreting the guidelines in the fall in a deliberative manner. Hudleston asked the committee to vote on whether to accept Rusack’s proposal and proceed now on a one-year basis or to delay the review of guidelines and proposals until the fall. The large majority of those present voted to proceed on a one-year basis.

Hudleston said he would consider the situation before the next and final meeting (May 6), and hoped to provide suggestions to the committee at that meeting as to what criteria they might use to evaluate the “new initiative” proposals on a one-year basis.