Minutes - May 2, 2003
1:30-3:00 PM - I.G. Greer Room 224
Persons Present:
Ex officio members: Jeff Williams (ITS, Chair), Doug May (ACS), Margaret Yaukey (Faculty Senate)
Voting members: Matthew McNaney (for Brian Brown, Student Services), Greg Lovins (Business Affairs), Lynn Lysiak (Appalachian Libraries), Ed Pekarek (Arts & Sciences), Don Rankins (Registrar), Peter Wachs (Student Development)
Guests Attending: Steve Breiner (Instructional Computing & ITAC Recorder), Gary Yorkdale (Walker COB), Jeff Church (Instructional Computing), David Hayler (Network Services), Oscar Knight (Network Services), Gail Eller (Registrar), Doug Brantz (Fine & Applied Arts), Thomas Van Gilder (Arts & Sciences), Pamela Graham (Arts & Sciences), Michael Bennett (Reich COE), Tom Leonard (University Advancement)
1) Welcome & Introductions
Jeff Williams called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM and greeted the membership, thanking those attending for their willingness to attend, despite the hectic nature of exam week.
2) IT Efficiencies Recommendations by the Governor
Williams mentioned to the membership that there were forthcoming recommendations and mandates from the NC Governor’s office and the NC Division of Information Resources. He promised to distribute the forthcoming information and documentation as it becomes available.
3) Draft Network Policies
Williams reported that a series of newly announced policy statements had been posted on an easily accessible IT Policy web page, http://www.policy.appstate.edu, to address requirements for approval of Appalachians IT Flex Management Plan, for upcoming visits by the State Information Resources auditors team, and for proposals coming out of the state legislature involving IT issues. He announced that Dr. Holly Hirst (Mathematical Sciences and Coordinator for the Recent SACS Study) has agreed to conduct an IT Policy Review and to research policy needs in the context of the UNC System.
David Hayler was then asked to comment on the need for and basic ideas behind the various network policies, recently posted to the Network Services web site and to the aforementioned IT Policy web page. Hayler proceeded to explain the intent and reasoning behind each of the new policies and asked for comments or foreseeable problems with the policies.
Williams then mentioned that the base-line IT security issue has been discussed at the State level. Robyn Render, VP of Information Resources and CIO, will be working with the State CIO to clearly define the requirements that will have to be met by all UNC institutions. He then explained the IT Management Flexibility Plan is another example of how the State wants to manage campus flexibility in planning and spending. It would be detrimental to Appalachian to lose this flexibility.
4) Update on IT Infrastructure
Williams reported about the ongoing progress in obtaining and implementing a Storage Area Network (SAN) for storage of critical university data, and that the, roughly, $300,000 cost of such a system was being covered as part of the IT Bond funding approved a couple years ago. He related that those systems needing high redundancy and rapid disaster recovery capability were being assigned priority to use the new SAN system. He further noted that a enterprise level backup solution was being pursued for automated , scheduled backup of critical systems.
5) Network Security Issue
Oscar Knight asked for ITAC input on whether the university (a) should allow students to run web servers on their personal machines, and (b) whether, if allowed, those machines should be held to the same security and protective criteria as are other university servers. Hayler mentioned the stringent requirements for academic and administrative servers and proposed that these machines should be required to meet the criteria beginning Fall Semester 2003. Ed Pekarek suggested that any and all exposed servers on the Appalachian network should be subject to the same strict criteria. Many of the ITAC membership voiced agreement with Pekarek’s statement.
Steve Breiner asked Hayler whether there were plans to eliminate peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing over the university network. Doug May replied that there is currently an ongoing campaign to educate students about the nature of P2P sharing and about what uses of the technology constitute violation of copyright law. Williams mentioned a the next UNC CIO videoconference was planned to discuss the P2P issue. May mentioned that there had been some 600 formal complaints about infringing P2P sharing of music, and that when such a complaint occurred, a user is blocked from network access and must avow and produce documentation that the material whose sharing had infringed had been removed from the user’s system before being reconnected. Pekarek suggested that a substantial reconnection fee might help discourage violators. Doug Brantz questioned whether it might be feasible for the university to force removal of P2P sharing software from users’ machines. May replied that such actions might well prompt users to move to encrypted forms of P2P, with the result that we would lose essentially all ability to monitor and regulate any P2P usage.
6) SCT Banner Update
Greg Lovins reported on the progress with implementing the SCT Banner Human Resources software system (Banner-HR) for a full deployment on July 1 of this year. He stated that the results of the trial runs, for which departments had submitted parallel time reports, were becoming ever more accurate and that current efforts are focusing mainly on benefits and deductions. He anticipated an employee concern caused by the new system occasionally issuing a check having a $0.01 discrepancy with previous months’ checks, but noted that such an anomaly should not be considered significant by employees - such discrepancies are simply the result of the accounting procedures used by the new system. Williams noted that SCT’s Web-for-Employees was being readied for deployment, offering possibilities that many HR-related tasks might be available via its online interface.
Matthew McNaney asked if the new system would reduce the paperwork burden on most employees and whether, on deployment, it would allow online submission of time logs. Lovins suggested that such benefits should begin to appear soon after the July 1 deployment, but that current efforts are addressing the most critical needs first: those of accuracy and precision in the accounting. As first priorities, his people will deal first with those issues, with others addressed later, as time and personnel permit. Michael Bennet asked whether there would be training in the new systems, with Lovins replying that virtually every department had representatives who had been involved in extensive and numerous training opportunities over the past year. Williams mentioned that the Alliance Banner project had undertaken an extensive “Business Process Analysis” to compare existing practices with Banner and prepare a fit gap analysis.
7) Discussion about ITAC role, participation and meeting format
Williams then asked the group to consider a number of issues related to the purpose and function of ITAC itself. He stated that, in his observation, participation in ITAC had been rather weak, and that participants rarely seemed to offer agenda items or discussion issues. He asked what steps might be taken to make ITAC a more useful and effective institution for the campus.
Gary Yorkdale suggested that ITAC should become a venue for proactive review of proposals that would affect IT infrastructure. Williams replied that the original purpose for the creation of ITAC was to provide an board to advise the provost and other top level administrators on strategic, not operational, issues. Breiner agreed that such things as policy, funding strategies, and other high level issues should be the target of ITAC, but that there seemed to be a consensus that ITAC had become mainly an information exchange rather than an advisory body.
During the ensuing, rather active discussion, a number of themes and perceptions seemed to emerge:
- The ITAC membership had taken on a more passive role than is desirable.
- ITAC seems to have very little influence on direction and policy.
- Many ITAC members were technically not well versed enough to adequately represent their constituencies, particularly in academic areas.
- There is, seemingly, less active interest than desired on the parts of the academic deans in what occurs in ITAC.
- A review of the makeup of ITAC should be considered.
- Since the Vice Chancellors and Deans make the appointments, they should consider whether their representation should be changed.
Some possible considerations that arose during the discussion:
- College consultants should become part of their academic areas’ ITAC membership.
- ITAC should be involved in setting and/or advising IT funding strategy before decisions are made about strategic initiatives.
- Regular reviews of ITAC’s effectiveness should occur.
- Strategic IT proposals should pass through ITAC before decisions are made.
- Individual areas should consider how much of their virtually complete independence they might be willing to sacrifice in order to participate in setting institution-wide IT strategy.
Williams thanked the group for the spirited discussion and promised to take these issues “up the line” to see how we might make ITAC more effective as a body. He asked that the body seriously consider the comments and suggestions made.
Adjournment
Williams adjourned the meeting at 3:30.
Permalink Comments off
