Computer Committee

Meeting Minutes

Meeting: 14 September 2001
LCC-115 10:30-12:00 p.m.

PRESENT: N. DeLeon, W. Dorin, J. Gerzema, S. Higgins, J. Knapp, C. Scott (Chair), and C. Wood, M. Uncapher and D. Steward, ex officio.

ABSENT: I. Hozo, R. Kini.

1. The chair welcomed everyone back for the new academic year.
2. Proposed Printer Replacement Policy. The committee addressed the draft proposal of a new Printer Replacement Policy for the campus, proposed by the VC for Information Technology. In summary, this proposed policy would shift campus-supported printing away from desktop printers in individual faculty and staff offices to networked printing distributed across departments, schools, and administrative units.

This policy change has been proposed for two specific reasons:

1. The current biennium budget does not provide sufficient funds for replacement of inkjet desktop printers at the rate of failure on the campus. This is due to two developments. First, the typical desktop printer, costing approx. $100, has been redesigned to minimize selling cost and has a useful lifetime of about 1000 sheets of printing, and carries only a 3-month warranty. The campus “life-cycle” funding program for printers was funded on the basis of a three-year lifetime for desktop printers, leaving a significant shortfall in ability to replace printers as they fail. Second, it has become the practice by some faculty and staff to print large jobs, such as syllabi, tests, etc., on their desktop printers, causing them to fail at a more rapid rate than budgeted for.
2. Over the past year, the number of IT personnel available for repair/troubleshooting of equipment has dropped to only two technicians and one manager. Thus, the level of staffing does not permit continuous servicing/repair of desktop printers, nor installing and setting up replacement desktop printers

The proposed policy would do two things to printing services on this campus:

1. When individual desktop printers fail, they would not be replaced by from the IT budget, as has been the practice up to this time. If replacement is deemed essential to the department or school in question, replacement would have to be funded from the unit's Supplies and Equipment budget, or a special request would have to be made by the Department Chair or Dean to the EVC of Academic Affairs to purchase another printer and add it in the “life-cycle” funding program. This could only be done as budgetary resources permit. (This part of the policy has already been implemented by the campus administration as of Sept. 1, 2001).
2. Funds currently available for desktop printers would be combined with that budgeted for networked laser printers and networked laser printers would be allocated among the various academic and staff units to the extent that the budget would allow. The networked laserjet printers would be placed on a five-year “life-cycle” replacement schedule, and would be serviced by IT personnel.

The committee discussed this policy and a number of significant issues were raised regarding implementation of this policy. First, was the issue of privacy of information. Many faculty print out sensitive e-mails, student advising reports, tests, etc. that could go unattended for a period of time. Unless the faculty or staff member went immediately to the networked printer, sensitive material could be available to unauthorized personnel. The second issue discussed related to the availability of color printing. The laserjets are black and white only printers, and color laserjets are prohibitively expensive at this time. The third issue raised was access. Many networked printers would have to be set up in central offices where all persons needing to use them might not have access after 5 p.m. or during lunch breaks. Many offices close at 5 p.m., and for lunch periods, during normal operations, and keys to those offices are not widely distributed among faculty members, especially adjunct faculty teaching in the evenings. This would make access to many of the printers unavailable except during standard operating times for administrative offices that do not necessarily correspond to teaching schedules.

The committee discussed several possible approaches to accomplishment of the same outcomes without removing complete support for desktop printing on the campus. These included phasing in the policy over a period of time, combined with education of the faculty and staff concerning printing solutions that would extend the life of the desktop printers.

Faculty requests for replacement of printers were also discussed. Many faculty contact the Help Desk when a printer fails, expecting that IT will immediately replace the printer. They have no control over the budget, nor the printers. They do not make decisions about who gets a printer and who doesn't. Requests should be routed through the academic or staff chain of command to the Executive VC of Academic Affairs.

The final point discussed was presentation of this policy to the Faculty Organization Executive Committee at its meeting of 1 p.m. on September 14. The Chair was to report the basic points of view of the committee to the Executive Committee for presentation to the faculty at its next Faculty Organization meeting on September 21, 2001

3. Proposed PC Replacement Policy: due to the length of time taken by the Printer Replacement Policy discussion, this policy discussion is postponed until the next meeting of the committee in October.
4. The committee next reviewed the status of the 2001-2002 computer “build” for campus laboratories. It was concluded that the build was satisfactory in terms of the software included, and no significant change needed made. CIS requested that icons for the major products represented in the Microsoft Office 2000 Premium software package be added to the desktop. After brief discussion, it was decided that the request could be honored on the next “ghosting” of the laboratory computers. Mark Uncapher will be responsible for implementation of that change. It was noted by the Chair that the “public” directory where faculty are to put files for student download had moved from its location last Spring, and faculty did not know where to go or how to access that directory for class materials. Mark Uncapher will work with the chair to clarify the location and ensure access by both students and faculty.
5. Inadequacies in the MacIntosh equipment in HH428 were discussed. VC Steward indicated that it is the intention of IT to move the MacIntoshes from RH212 to HH428 to update the equipment. Carol Wood will work with Jan Gerzema to determine the utilization of the HH428 equipment/room, and present a recommendation for meeting the need at the October meeting of the committee.
6. Several persons on the committee noted that the procedure for scheduling laboratory time for classes changed over the summer and the faculty was not notified. Several of us found out about the change when attempting to acquire occasional lab space during the semester. It was noted that this kind of change without notification has led to many hard feelings in the past. We simply need to be informed when changes that affect us are made. VC Steward indicated that it was not IT that made the change. It was done at the direction of the upper administration. He found out about it indirectly also.
7. Status of Mac repair staffing was postponed until the October meeting.