General Meeting Information

Date: March 3, 2016
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Location: ADM 109

  • Agenda

    Time Agenda Topic Purpose Discussion Leader
    1:30-1:35 p.m. Introductions of committee members: new official representatives and at-large members/Approval of minutes I/A All/Dec. meeting attendees
    1:35-2:05 p.m. Accreditation presentation I/D Newell
    2:05-2:35 p.m. Technology plan: Brief strategic capabilities workshop summary; review of proposed survey I/D Spatafore
    2:35-2:45 p.m. Determining best college tech solutions/providing training I King
    2:45-2:55 p.m.

    Standing Information Items:

    • ETS Project Scheduling Subcommittee (formerly Tech Prioritization Committee)
    • Online Education Advisory Group
    • OEI
    • ETS
    • ETAC
    • Banner Student Committee


    • Cheu
    • Ranck
    • TBD
    2:55-3 p.m.

    Possible alternative dates for special April meeting featuring technology plan preparation: 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 12; Wednesday, April 13; Thursday, April 14; or Friday, April 15 

     D  All

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes

    Present: Cheu, Hansen, Harrell, King, Luciw, Markus, Owiesny, Peña-Ferrick, Ranck, Spatafore (co-chair); Mallory Newell (guest); Vanessa Smith (notes) 

    Approval of Dec. 3 Minutes

    Markus expressed appreciation to Vanessa Smith for informative and well-written minutes. A minor editorial change was noted and made.

    Accreditation Presentation

    Newell showed the timeline leading up to the accreditation site visit in fall 2017. The Accreditation Committee/College Planning Committee (CPC) is planning for the Self-Study and visit and, per the approval of College Council, is asking designated governance groups to work on relevant portions; Section III.C relates to Technology. In May, an accreditation survey will go out to all employees and students; results will be shared in fall quarter. New to this year’s accreditation process is the quality focus essay, a five-page document highlighting areas to focus on in the next seven years. All documents will go to the board in June 2017.

    Spatafore said that because technology changes so rapidly, it is unwise to attempt to develop a seven-year technology plan. Newell said the committee could do two in one cycle, perhaps in line with the midterm report. The accreditation questions can help drive what’s in the plan. Newell then presented on the accreditation process and how to respond to the standards. 

    Spatafore brought up the recent group name change and mission revision. Newell noted that because it happened at the end of the cycle, the group will still need to address what’s happened in the last five years. Newell went on to show where the college is in the planning “quilt” process. Newell said there is a shared Office 365 doc with standards in it. 

    Technology Plan : Brief Strategic Capabilities Workshop Summary

    Spatafore summarized last year’s strategic capabilities workshop. Luciw said normally senior leadership comes up with strategic goals and it’s used loosely at the district as all are involved in district planning for technology. Spatafore noted that one succinct definition is a “set of capacities, resources and skills that create a long-term competitive advantage for an organization.” Spatafore said that while the concepts can be abstract, considering resources and skills long-term is important to planning. She noted that the Foothill Tech Task Force had also decided to rename itself the Technology Committee. 

    Spatafore pointed out that Foothill is currently further along in its tech planning and has conducted a survey, but it is not necessarily ideal for De Anza. The committee reviewed Foothill’s survey questions. Ranck said it’s important to note that the two committees have different functions. Foothill’s Tech Committee does hardware and software prioritization and the process is different at both colleges. Spatafore asked for subcommittee updates while she pulled up a first draft of survey questions. 

    Standing Information Items


    Luciw said a vendor has been chosen a vendor for the new phone system, AMS.NET, which is a Cisco solution. Purchasing developed a rigorous, confidential screening and evaluation process. 

    The phone system will allow videoconferencing and the licensing is fair and favorable to the district. Chat is involved and allows flexibility for groups like Counseling and A&R. There are a lot of problems with the current system that are being corrected for ease of use. There is potential for emergency messages through speakerphone and loudspeakers in hallways. 

    Spatafore asked about the ability, which has been requested, for faculty to text students without using a personal number. Luciw said it couldn't be mandatory, but it’s an add-on; she said it was important that a vendor have a solution for that. Also there is a clause to terminate the contract if proof of concept doesn't turn out. Spatafore asked for a reminder of the timeline. Luciw said the timeline is forced as the Sunnyvale site has to have phones when they move in in August. They hope to have the majority of work at both campuses done by Oct. 31. Cheu asked who to contact for specifics. Luciw said to contact her. 

    Owiesny asked how it affects downtime of existing phones. Luciw said there is no downtime. The plan is to work quad by quad at De Anza. There will be hands-on training before new phones go live. Luciw explained the options and differences between hard and soft phones. Everyone except faculty will need to decide if the team gets one or the other. Luciw added that ETS will be quite busy for the next six to ten months. Owiesny asked if certain computers are too old for new phones. Luciw said if they’re within the five-year Measure C span, they’re fine. 

    Tech Prioritization/ETS Project Scheduling

    Cheu said the Tech Prioritization Committee has been renamed the ETS Project Scheduling Subcommittee. The first meeting will be March 18 from 1:30-2:30 in ADM 106; anyone is welcome to come. Luciw asked if the scope is Measure C multimedia refreshing. Cheu said not just Measure C. Luciw asked if anything funded elsewhere gets into one schedule. Spatafore clarified that it’s the most pro forma committee. Luciw said it’s more of an ad hoc team. 

    Online Education Advisory Group

    Ranck said that nine people came to the Online Education advisory group meeting. They mostly talked about the AACJC Substantive Change proposal. It goes to the board next week and pending approval will go to AACJC by March 18. This will allow the college to be accredited to offer 15 degrees and 20 certificates online, and students can get financial aid for those. The group also discussed a general Catalyst timeline and that online enrollment continues to rise. Ranck asked if Owiesny had anything to add. Owiesny mentioned Canvas. Ranck said that Canvas is the OEI content management system, and they have had initial discussions with Academic Senate about possible implementation. Ranck has sent additional information to interested faculty. They will have an inclusive process for people to see what Canvas has to offer. 

    Banner Student Committee

    Spatafore asked Harrell to speak to the Banner Student Committee, and he deferred to Peña-Ferrick. The group hopes for the Banner XE upgrade by year-end. They will need trainings and testing. They are back testing the add code process so students won’t have to submit changes twice. Some CRNs worked and some didn't. 

    Spatafore asked about April meeting dates, and explained that co-chair Mary Pape had a previous commitment and couldn't make the March meeting. Pape had asked that Friday, April 15, be removed as a possible date because of the SLO Convocation. Markus said she can’t do Tuesday or Wednesday, and Harrell added that April 13 and 14 are conference dates. Smith will ask the group for preferences. 

    Technology Training Solutions

    King said people are asking for technology solutions for things that are not district standards. Different programs do their own orientations and want people to sign up online. All groups are using or exploring variety of solutions. King said it would be preferable to standardize. For example, she has three groups interested in Google forms for noncritical intake forms. Spatafore added there is a need to look at forms during the web redesign. 

    Owiesny said it would be good if the forms populated a spreadsheet in addition to sending an email. She added that a very small amount of her referrals come from that form, but she needs a better system to manage those she does bring into her office. King does have some solutions, and she doesn't want to offer something different than what ETS has decided on. Owiesny said that Google Drive is not ETS-supported but students are using that in elementary school. King said there is no solution for faculty sharing items with students. Luciw said they can with Office 365. King reiterated that it is not intended as an online collaboration tool for students because of FERPA issues. Luciw said that’s what the online class tools like Moodle and Canvas are for. King said while that is true, students want to be able to send drafts for teachers to look at, at Office 365 is not student-friendly. Luciw said at some community colleges every class gets an online presence whether they use it or not and it can be used in a limited capacity for that. Luciw said Google Docs probably isn't FERPA compliant because the district doesn't have a contract with Google. Owiesny said that’s how they’re being shared. Luciw said it’s because they haven’t been given an alternative. Luciw agreed there does need to be a standard. Owiesny added that Catalyst has no online collaboration area. Luciw said Canvas does. Ranck says Catalyst doesn't have the capability in space and breadth to offer a course shell for every faculty member, and because faculty doesn't have to use anything in particular, they use whatever they like. 

    Luciw said she wouldn't encourage the use of Google Docs, but King said they do need a form solution. Luciw said Chien might have something in the portfolio that could be used. 

    Proposed Technology Plan Survey Questions

    Spatafore asked the group for comments and said they should look at the standards and finalize at the April meeting. Additions can be sent in the interim. Noting software questions, Owiesny asked how you know the software you use is district or not. King said you can refer to the list on the survey because everything there is district standard. Luciw said other software is in use like Filemaker, but it is not supported. Spatafore added that Harrell had done a good job of brainstorming several categories. Spatafore asked for general comments. 

    King said the survey is good in terms of software needs, but not a lot about hardware. Does the group want to ask about that? King said some computers are still running Office 2008, and it does affect instruction. Owiesny said there does need to be hardware questions. Teams have trouble finding classrooms to use to view game videos. Coaches would say hardware is an important issue. Spatafore asked for specific questions to be emailed to her. 

    Ranck suggested asking, “What free or open resources do you use?” Owiesny asked about the redesign, and Spatafore directed her to the Communications website.

Back to Top