Meeting Notes - November 18, 2009
3:15-5:00 pm
1) Approve Notes from November 4, 2009
Notes were approved
2) Wireless Proposal Update
The Deans agreed that the wireless for the Campus Center & La Voz should be a top priority. ETS would work within the physical limitations to make these requests a part of the top priority projects. Any additional costs would come out of the Measure C wireless project budget. There was a discussion on what items are on the prioritization list.
3) Banner Gradebook
Chenoweth attended a demo of the student model and how faculty would enter the grades. He asked questions regarding the existing system & functionality. Grades would eventually have to be entered into Banner but we can keep the portal for the present time. The Banner system is not as detailed as the present portal system. Functionality would be investigated. There is functionality from Catalyst to Banner but possibly not for Etudes. This would also be investigated further.
4) Tech Planning - Training Group Report
The team did not get together yet. Englen provided some ideas to Chenoweth from a previous meeting. The goal of this project would be to write a procedure to integrate the accreditation tech training goals into campus ongoing training. The question of lack of funding was raised. Jeanpierre suggested the team produce a tech training plan which would be put into place as funding allowed. She also suggested that the SAO coordinator come to a meeting to assist the group in moving forward. Immediate needs vs. long term needs were discussed. Englen offered to provide an assessment tool for the team to test.
5) Tech Planning - Strategic Planning Integration Report
Chenoweth reported that the Strategic Planning web site does not mention technology in detail. The team should be working on tying the Technology Plan's goals into the four Strategic Planning institutional initiatives, which are:
Outreach, Individualized Attention to Student Retention and Success; Cultural Competence; Community Collaborations
LaManque is working on accreditation. Another resource might be the SAO and SLO process. The team could look at the various models, such as: needs,action plans, accreditation, bottom up, needs vs. resources. The district is looking at all the plans from the colleges and identifying a priority of needs. Perhaps De Anza might look at it the same manner.
Originally the goals were supposed to be tied to the Strategic Planning process, but with the loss of funding the Strategic Planning process broke down.
In lieu of a December meeting the team should read all the documents and start to think about prioritizing the needs of the campus. Metcalf would set up a matrix.
6) Burning Issues
Measure C funding:
Jeanpierre introduced an item by saying that ETS would like to talk about moving around some funding.
Sherman talked about the two items addresses in his email http://www.deanza.edu/gov/techcommittee/announcements/News11_18_09.htmlSherman also added the following information to the first item's discussion: The College started with 5000 computers now has 6000 computers. The question was how to manage the inventory of computers on campus. ETS was looking at combining some Measure C funding to allocate more dollars to the near term needs. In the long term, other funding sources may be available. ETS are researching ideas for solutions. The total amount for this item is approx. $5.8m.
Talking about the second item, Sherman said this proposal was being made directly to the colleges. The total amount for this item is approx. $20k per year.
The group agreed to recommend the second proposal to College Council.
Present: Chenoweth, Englen, Grobman, Jeanpierre, Kahn, Luciw, Metcalf, Mowrey, Oswenski, F. Sherman. Notes: Gibson.