Institute of Technology
Minutes of the ITICC Meeting,
May 3, 2006
3:35 p.m., Physics 210
Present: Mark Anderson (Chem), Bill Arnold (CE), Rayna DeMaster (AEM), Rob Edman (Math), Peter Hudleston (IT Dean’s Office), Michelle Jacobs (CEMS), Terry Jones (Astro), Phil Kachelmyer (ADCS), Kent Kirkby (Geol), Jerry Larson (ADCS), Larry LeMay (ADCS), Jim MacDonald (CSE, IT Labs), Dan MacEwan (Chem), Kent Mann (Chem), Sean O’Neill (Astro), Roger Rusack (Phys), Tom Shield (AEM), Lucas Veverka (ITSB)
1) Status reports from CSciE and ADCS and PJH
There was nothing to report regarding lab operations. LeMay reported problems with the door locks for ME 308 and EECS 2172. These have been fixed.
DeMaster raised a concern about Matlab, although this time not one with accessing a base license. Apparently AEM students in ME 308 have had trouble getting licenses for Blockset, a toolkit for Matlab. We have 10 licenses for this, and demand has exceeded supply. [Shield later contacted PJH to inform him that the department has purchased another 10 licenses, which should take care of the problem.]
2) Presentation and Discussion of Lab Management Proposals for 2006-07
MacDonald handed out copies of the proposed contract for FY 07 from Computer Science. He noted that the service is essentially the same as in the past – that is the number of FTEs and total effort is the same. The budget total however is about 3% less than for FY 06 because of changes in individual staff appointments.
Larson handed out copies of the proposed ADCS contract. He first made a correction to the 05/06 budget. The cost of staffing Lind 24 should have been $0 in this budget, but inadvertently had been carried over from the previous year. Correcting for this reduces the FY06 budget by about $7,300. Larson then noted that the increase in the budget from FY06 to FY07 has been lessened due to several factors. First, the number of consultant hours has been reduced (in addrtion to reductions made eaerlier), following installation of cameras in all the labs. Also, the printers now need less attention. In addition, the fraction of two senior managers’ time has been reduced to 10%. Overall, Larson reckoned that the cost of the contract is about 20-25% less than it would have been had the number of lab consultants not been substantially reduced from the staffing level of several years ago.
Hudleston reminded the committee that if the recommendations of the review committee were followed there would be changes in how the management is structured. He said that any changes would have to be worked out in the fall and that for next year we would follow the current management scheme. Rusack asked if the contracts could be for 6 months, to shorten the time before the change would be made. Hudleston replied that he wanted to give ample time for negotiations and for the affected parties to adjust. Keeping the contract period for a year allowed for this and was what he preferred.
Hudleston said that he would conduct an email ballot on the management contracts in the usual way.
4) Final Presentation of the Report of the ITICC Review Committee
Rusack said that he had received only one comment from a committee member since making the initial presentation to the report at the April ITICC meeting. He again outlined the main elements of the report, which were recorded in the April 13 minutes. They include:
· Most students are unaware of what the technology fee is paying for. The instructional computing facilities supported by the IT fee – both in the public labs and in the departments - need to be much better advertised and the use of the fee better explained.
How can we do this? It needs to be made clear that both public labs and departmental labs are supported. Sending email messages is of limited use, as many students assume much of their email is spam, even though, as Hudleston noted, email is the official means of communication at the University.
· The committee feels the split management is inefficient and that management should be under a single structure.
Shield noted that if this is to be done there needs to be one unit willing to take on this responsibility. He added that the current split management structure came about for a reason – there was no entity prepared to take on all the responsibility. Hudleston acknowledged this, but said he felt circumstances had changed sufficiently to revisit the issue.
· Lab management should extend the services it provides beyond the IT public labs and use its technical expertise to meet other computational instructional needs in the departments.
· The lab attendants/consultants should be replaced by cameras. The labs only need to be staffed when busy.
· “Free” printing (or rather printing at no additional costs, since the cost is covered by the fee) up to a reasonable limit should be allowed. The committee recommends 250 copies a semester.
As had been agreed to by ITICC earlier, this is being initiated this summer.
· Space should be made available for students to do group work at computers.
· There should be a few reservable spaces where instructors can work with a small group of students.
MacDonald pointed out that we already have such locations. Shield asked where the request for such space had originated. Rusack replied that this had been from students in the survey and Joe Konstan.
· ITICC should work with the Office of Classroom Management to develop a standard for "computing intensive" classrooms, to inventory and if needed upgrade classrooms to meet this standard, and to make such classrooms requestable as part of classroom reservation.
· ITICC should press for the rights to set up CAD software for remote access and pursue licenses for student use of Mathematica and Matlab on personal computers.
· The disks of the public lab computers should be accessible from the departmental labs.
· The computers reserved for IT students in Walter 103 should include some Windows computes.
· A modified fee structure is proposed that would reduce the fee for students who use the labs less or who are already paying another technology fee. It would also add a fee for non-IT students taking lower division chemistry, physics and other courses.
· The workspace in the labs need to be cleaner and welcoming.
Hudleston said that he would explore over the summer the ramifications of adopting the major changes recommended by the committee. These are moving to single management and changing the fee structure. He will consult with relevant parties. In the case of the fee, he pointed out that IT cannot make changes unilaterally. They have to be approved by central administration and, if other colleges are involved, these would need to be involved in the discussion also.
We will take up the question of implementation of the committee’s recommendations in the fall.
5) Other Business
None