CCFIT > Calendar & Minutes > 1998-2003 Minutes > June 16, 2003 Minutes

1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS - CHAIR BLEDSOE
2. UC DAVIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PROCESS -- JOHN BRUNO
3. DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTIVITIES AND ROLE FOR 2003-04 -- ALL

Chair Bledsoe introduced the joint meeting by going over its main objectives (see PowerPoint presentation):

1. Consideration of new roles for the councils, such as advising on requests for IT projects or initiation of new IT projects,
2. Identification of issues and policies that the councils should consider during the next year, and
3. Discussion of the value of holding separate vs. joint meetings of the Computing Coordinating Councils.

Bledsoe reminded members that both councils represent a diverse cross-section from the campus’ schools and colleges. She noted that senate and non-senate faculty, deans and assistant deans, vice chancellors and other administrators, as well as staff and students are represented. Given this broad range of experience and perspectives, Bledsoe noted the importance of engaging the group in meaningful activities during the upcoming academic year. Bledsoe also indicated that the campus has undergone a number of changes in the last few years and is facing a number of difficult issues that will impact decisions related to academic and administrative computing at UC Davis. These include:

• Budget situation facing the University
• Change in campus leadership (i.e., transition in University Provost/Executive Vice Chancellors)
• Changes to a more open process on campus in how IT decisions are made
• The IT Strategic Planning process headed by Vice Provost Bruno and Vice Chancellor Meyer
• The recommendations recently submitted by the WASC Re-accreditation Team.

The main outcome of today’s joint meeting will be to develop a draft list of major issues and projects for members of both councils to consider next year. The IT Planning Process now underway, as well as the recommendations recently submitted by the WASC Re-accreditation Team, will provide two important starting points for the identification of those discussion topics.

II. UC DAVIS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANNING PROCESS -- JOHN BRUNO

Chair Bledsoe shared a list of major accomplishments for AC4 and AdC3 as examples of topics discussed by both councils in the past few years. Examples included the LEAD initiative, the evaluation of alternatives and recommendations for course management systems, MyUCDavis, review of document management systems, the Data Warehouse, SEVIS, etc.

Vice Provost Turner provided an overview of the WASC re-accreditation review and the team’s recommendations. Turner explained that the WASC effort is now nearly complete, and that the campus will soon meet and testify before the Commission. At that point, the WASC will announce its final decision about the re-accreditation status of UC Davis.

One of the focus areas that the campus selected for this review was educational technology. The campus defined the parameters and posed the questions for review by the WASC. The recommendations in the WASC report deal with many of the issues, questions, and topics the campus had identified as being important to review and address as part of this process. Turner commented that Joel Hartman from the University of Central Florida and one of the Commission members involved in the UC Davis review is the President of EDUCAUSE. Hartman spent considerable time reviewing the UC Davis use of information technology for education.

Andy Jones, Chair of the AC4 Subcommittee on Educational Technology, reported that the subcommittee has started discussing the recommendations in the WASC report (see handout), and more specifically recommendations 2, 5, 8, and 9. Jones indicated that the group has been discussing “technological literacy” and pointed out the need for temporary instructors to gain full functional training.

Council members identified and discussed many functions and roles that the Councils perform or should consider performing. Topics included:

• Development of policy regarding the end of life of computers and donation to charitable causes. Members identified this as an effort underway in the Office of Administration.
• Providing advice to the provost regarding campus information technology issues and concerns.
• Reviewing information technology and budget proposals by campus units.
• Identification of educational technology issues as defined by campus units.
• Addressing and prioritizing information technology literacy issues and needs.
• Guidelines for the allocation of funds.
• Need to improve Council communications with the campus community.
• Identification of future projects for consideration in the planning process (e.g., faculty merit and promotions).

The group then brainstormed a list of potential topics for discussion, which Chair Bledsoe indicated she would share with all members after the meeting.

Bledsoe then asked Council members to consider whether they should continue to meet independently or jointly. Members suggested that separate subcommittee meetings are useful but the Councils should continue to meet jointly. Bledsoe indicated she would summarize this discussion and share both Councils’ recommendations with Provost Hinshaw.

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.