General Meeting Information

Date: June 2, 2016
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Location: ADM 109

  • Agenda

    Time Agenda Topic Purpose Discussion Leader
    1:30-1:35 p.m. Approval of May 5 minutes/Shared governance reflection A All
    1:35-2:05 p.m. Analyze technology survey responses (full report)  I/D Harrell/Spatafore/Pape/All
    1:55-2:05 p.m.

    Discuss technology survey in progress

     D All
    2:05-2:35 p.m.


     D All
    2:35-3 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
    • Moreau
    • Luciw
    • Peña-Ferrick

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes

    Present: Cheu, Hansen, Harrell, King, Lakshmanan, Luciw, Owiesny, Pape, Spatafore; Faris Waiteasa (DASB); Vanessa Smith (notes) 

    Review May 5 Meeting Minutes

    Lakshmanan noticed the notes erroneously stated she had added a federal regulatory part to her section of the tech accreditation matrix. Spatafore said it would be struck from the record. 

    Cheu reminded the group that she had already sent notes from the ETS Project Scheduling Committee. Those notes will be posted to the website. 

    Shared Governance Reflection

    Pape noted that the reflection has been reduced to two questions: 

    1) Reflecting on the work of your governance group over the past year, how did this work help fulfill our mission, Institutional Core Competencies, and commitment to equity? 

    2) Reflecting on your governance group’s processes and practices over the past year, what has been working and what changes do you plan to implement over the next academic year to ensure continuous improvement? 

    Spatafore said the very revision of the committee was done to help fulfill the mission and ensure improvement. It previously was not a high-functioning committee and had no designated representation. Pape said the group supports all organizational and instructional endeavors for others to improve learning and engagement as called for by the mission statement. 

    Spatafore said tech planning will coalesce with the educational master plan, the core of which is equity. Pape said #2 is easier to answer and more factual. The group can summarize what they told college council and that information will be needed for accreditation anyway. Pape said chiefly the plan for next year is to focus on the tech plan. Cheu said even #1 speaks to the revision and reorganization. Spatafore noted that the reflection used to be checkboxes; Cheu said the revised questions are deliberately open- ended. 

    Technology Survey Responses

    Harrell explained the results of the tech survey. Spatafore reminded the group that only #6 was taken from Foothill. Spatafore and King were not surprised by video production training desires. King said she has a good idea what people want but few people come to the trainings. Spatafore pointed out that, as Moreau had also noted, is available to all faculty and staff; she said that Communications Office staff frequently avail themselves of the resource. Harrell asked how people would respond to #12 in a year compared to Canvas. Spatafore added those discussions are ongoing. 

    Harrell delivered an analyzed, detailed summary of the open-ended responses. Spatafore noted that a number of people mentioned projects already available or in progress, and that those are communications issues for multiple areas, including the Communications Office, Online Education and ETS. She concluded that while not all requests can be fulfilled, it is very useful to know what faculty and staff are saying, and the survey can be used as an educational opportunity. 

    Spatafore pointed out that some requests, rather than being technology-oriented, actually pertain to facilities. Pape said, for example, one respondent asked for chalkboards to be replaced by whiteboards Cheu said some blackboards have been left deliberately because they were requested by the Math Department. Hansen said people requesting whiteboards may not use them the same way people use blackboards. Owiesny asked if there’s a dual ability. Hansen said Owiesny should mention her needs in her room request and the Scheduling Office should be able to accommodate her. Owiesny said historically she’s not being accommodated and asked if there are rooms with both. Cheu said the dual is more expensive and Hansen said there are so few chalkboard rooms she should be able to be scheduled. Owiesny said the classroom in the PE building is booked out for other classes.

    Spatafore echoed Hansen that Instruction’s Scheduling Office would be able to accommodate her. Pape asked if anyone wanted smart boards. Luciw and Cheu characterized the cycle of refresh cycles within the bond. Multimedia refreshes have cost more money than expected. 

    More/better Wi-Fi is a common refrain. Luciw said ETS has two big projects this summer, chiefly Foothill’s Sunnyvale Center. Wi-Fi is included, as well changing the way of visitor accounts. Luciw said campus visitor updates are about ready to deploy. Luciw said there’s no infrastructure for Wi-Fi in faculty offices. They know what needs to be done but it won’t be able to be looked at for a while. 

    King said said people don’t know where to go to find the info they need. Spatafore said it may be a planning issue; for topics raised, more education needs to occur. King said a lot of answers are on the Technology Training website. King added that she tends to get the same people for her trainings. People need to work within what’s supported and not everyone can use all the different tools out there.

    Spatafore said they will go back and indicate what’s in progress or completed. She noted that a number of respondents praised ETS staff for their work. 

    With regard to Banner complaints, Luciw said there aren't many alternatives, although Banner may not be ideal. Spatafore mentioned that one person suggested getting rid of Omni. Luciw said Omni is probably one of the better content management solutions out there. King said many people complain about Omni because they forget how to use it. Pape said she would worry about single sign-on with Tracdat because of the opportunity for people to edit others’ work. Owiesny said Firefox is recommended for Catalyst. King said with Canvas it doesn't matter.

    The topic of department listservs arose. Hansen doesn't want a campuswide listserv that allows everyone to interact because of the possibility for conflict. Harrell said listservs are usually for departments or subsets of those departments and that the Communications Office can provide them upon request. 

    Spatafore went over the college Technology Plan and Accreditation matrices again. All agreed with the proposal that a dedicated workgroup meet over the summer to continue to draft the documents.

    Standing Information Items


    Luciw said she would be sending an email next week about VoIP phone testing in the staff development area. Luciw said faculty will choose, managers and admins by default get a desk phone. Managers choose which is appropriate for each team but members should try them out. Hansen asked that if people will be able to answer the phone while away from the office with the computer-based option. Luciw said the vendor said yes but may have to jump through some hoops. Luciw will be posting an FAQ and other info. 

    As an aside, King mentioned that one division has licensed a program to archive syllabi. One division does something, then others do and there is no standardization across campus. Spatafore said that’s a legitimate concern and one of the roles of the Tech Committee. Spatafore asked if no curriculum management systems have a syllabi repository. Hansen said PSME collects syllabi. Pape said they’re more concerned about the audience. A student may have trouble finding what they’re looking for. King said Pape’s division has years of syllabi. Spatafore said it is an issue of technology enhancing the experience. 

    Spatafore asked if Lakshmanan would be available in the summer for a working group. Pape said if anyone has ideas they should send them along. She will work with King and Lakshmanan on their piece. Pape said communication seems to be an issue from the survey and planning perspective. Spatafore said certain representatives are expected to communicate info back to their areas, another reason the denoting of membership for the committee is a good idea. 

    ETS Project Scheduling Committee

    Cheu’s project scheduling group meets tomorrow. 


    ETAC has mostly been talking about the Sunnyvale center. Banner had a shutdown last weekend and there will be another one at the end of June for close of fiscal year. Spatafore asked that the group look carefully at the dates to ensure that Banner won’t be shut down when students most need it.

    Spatafore summarized the accomplishments of the Technology Committee over the past year, reiterating the significance of changes to the group’s mission and membership.

Back to Top