ITB Meeting Minutes December 8, 1998

Absent: John Bruno, Jeff Dozier, Joan Murdoch

Bob Sugar, ITB Chair, opened the meeting by announcing new board members appointed subsequent to the Chancellor's announcement of the ITB's formation. These include ex officio members Glenn Davis, Director of IS&C, and Elise Meyer, Computer Resource Manager for Physics, co-chairs of the Information Technology Planning Group (ITPG). The ITPG is comprised of technical staff throughout the campus. It will be a resource to the ITB, and Glenn and Elise will serve as liaisons between the two groups. The new University Librarian will be appointed to the ITB when she arrives on campus. In the interim, John Vassi, Associate University Librarian, will represent the Library.

The charge of the ITB is to provide the Chancellor and the Executive Vice Chancellor with advice on campus-wide issues and campus planning. The Board was formed out of the Campus Network Committee (CNC), which has significant operational responsibilities and has a need to establish lines of responsibility in a diverse computing environment.

The focus of this meeting was to find out what different groups are doing on campus in order to begin to address what needs more attention and examine how to best organize to effectively get things done, for example, creating a CIO position.

Presentations, which can be accessed by clicking on the name of the speaker, were made by:

• Michael Young, Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs
• Ronald Tobin, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Programs
• David Sheldon, Vice Chancellor, Administrative Services
• Bob Sugar, Chair CNC, Chair ITB, Professor of Physics
• Elise Meyer, Co-Chair, ITPG, Computer Resource Manager in Physics

Issues Identified as "Urgent" by the Information Technology Planning Group

• Security: Possible areas to address are organizing security response by operating system and reconciling the broad spectrum of protection schemes that exist on campus.
• Directory Services: There is already a version 1 LDAP server on campus. The administrators need input from the rest of campus regarding what information and fields should be supported. A Directory Service is the building block for other campus services.
• Planning and Funding: We need dedicated staff responsible for planning. We also need more IT resources available for classroom support and decisions on what should be centralized or decentralized. There needs to be a tremendous increase in permanent funding for permanent functions e.g., staffing, S&E, hardware renewal.
• Creation of a unified data network group (vs. the current split NOC) which needs some level of funding.
• Student access to computing resources (and definition of what resources are available). What are the plans in addition to the Library Open Access systems?
• Dial-up access to campus.
• Umbrella organization or structure for Administrative Systems and functions: how these systems can best interface to other resources, use datawarehousing, etc.
• UCSB participation in the UC authentication project, including the determination of what protocols and site licenses are required.
• New campus backbone planning, e.g., how will new groups join?
• Fragmentation of Campus IT support and decision making.

ITB Committee Meeting Wrap Up

Before adjourning the meeting, Bob asked for the issues each attendee wanted the committee to address. They are summarized below.

• Technology provides all kinds of opportunities. We need to figure out the infrastructure to enable us to take advantage of it.
• Planning and funding is a problem on campus: who funds what and at what level. We need to look beyond the immediate, be proactive rather than just replacing without a plan.
• We need to have these needs projected into a budget.
• College of Creative Studies has a small budget. A student is the support staff. The MSO who has her plate full is also providing technical support.
• Creation of the ITB can move us toward a centralized organization that may enable legacy systems to be decreased. Where the cat should be jumping is hindered by legacy systems.
• Access and network should be talked about simultaneously.
• Every student must have a computer. There are models where students must have a laptop on day one. School /student funds this because we can't keep up with the changing technology.
• This is a crucial policy question. If any group can formulate this policy, it's this group. We have to build this into Financial Aid, etc. It needs discussion.
• Student universal access; fragmentation of efforts – we must collaborate and coordinate; information systems is a utility and shouldn't be a funding issue – everyone needs it.
• Deficit of funds for research – one college can't deal on its own. Access, what does it mean? Out to the internet, instructional work and needs, labs? If we plan on using infrastructional loans, use IT money to service instructional needs of campus.
• Research mission – While we must continue to achieve high rankings and must be competitive, must be top level in this area to attract top students and faculty, we have minimal resources. We have a community that would like to collaborate with us. We need to include research opportunities. We need a statement of vision: where we want to go over the next several years.
• Budget of Social Sciences and cost of student access. Concern about access off campus. As we get faculty and students upgraded, speed is critical.
• Active access for students: web discussion groups, web space, assignments online. What is the role of the department in technology issues? There is a disconnect. Front line work is done in departments, so does it belong at the department level? What is the proper relationship between department and central? Graduate students get lost. They have a special sort of need – don't use central services. We need advanced web education programs.
• Intellectual property online. Does it become the University's? Will this create faculty redundancy? Legal council needed to work out this issue.
• Access for departments and staff as well as students.
• Faculty access is an issue for research purposes. What are the instructional benefits/values? – not just how easy and instant it is.
• Access: distance learning, policies on technology, etc. Quality: ensure quality of instruction. Cost: recent funds are from temporary funding. Where is funding coming from? Teaching drives technology, not the other way.
• "How to" instruction on the computer itself. Students take things on the web as fact. Students need to understand how to use the technology.
• Policies which guide development of information technology. Coordinate activities to maximize resources. Interdisciplinary cooperation facilitated by this board.