The minutes from the last meeting were approved as submitted.

• AC4 Steering Committee Update:
  The AC4 Steering Committee did not need to address any issues since the last Council meeting.

• California Virtual University Subcommittee Update:
  AC4 Chair Matthews sought input from Council members regarding who might chair the CVU subcommittee.

• AC4 Website and Database Update:
  Council members should view and navigate around the Council website (http://ac4.ucdavis.edu) and provide feedback on the look and feel of the pages and the content to Paula King or Harry Matthews. The interactive database reports section of the website should be ready for members to preview shortly. Paula King or Gilda Garcia will send a message to Council members when this section is 'live'. Feedback was requested about whether or not email links should be provided for each member and be featured prominently on the website. The consensus was that they should be. Members who do not want an email link to their address should notify the Chair. Links will also be supplied to the biographical sketches of the members.

Dave Shelby, Chair of the Review Committee for the AVC-IT Office's 5-year review, presented the four organizational models under consideration for defining the position of the new leader of IT. These are:

1. A senior administrative leader, i.e., either an Associate Vice Chancellor, similar to Carole Barone's position, or possibly upgraded to full Vice Chancellor. An Executive Director for IT would probably be needed to oversee day-to-day operations;

2. A senior academic leader, i.e., a Vice Provost position with a faculty appointment. This might provide a better connection to the academic concerns of the campus. Since this person might not have a broad technical background, this option would almost necessitate the appointment of an Executive Director of IT to handle operations;

3. Splitting the IT organization into separate administrative and academic structures, with a high-ranking IT leader for each part. This would mirror the Council structure. Anticipated problems include how to position infrastructure concerns, how to coordinate responsibilities and communications, and how to avoid duplication of effort;

4. A "utility model" wherein an Executive Director for IT is appointed to run operations, with the Councils and the ITPB providing strategic direction. It might be difficult to recruit from outside for this model, since it explicitly withholds policy-making responsibility from the position.

While Option 2 is clearly an effort to provide a closer connection to the academic issues, it seems to assume that anyone with a faculty appointment will automatically be responsive to faculty concerns; this may be a faulty assumption (as would an analogous assumption about an administrative appointee). It might be better to ensure that a structure and processes are in place to ensure that instructional and research voices are heard. On the other hand, having tenure might permit the IT leader more freedom in their recommendations and actions to make sure academic needs are met.

Since Options 1 and 2 consolidate a lot of power in one IT leader, some members of the Council feel that "structural scaffolding" is necessary to make sure that shared governance is kept at the heart of the implementation of information technologies on campus. With the correct checks and balances in place, either would probably work well.

It is quite possible that an effective IT leader on this campus will need both sets of credentials, and the recruiting committee should have the broadest latitude possible to attract premium candidates.

It is recognized up front that Option 3 would be the hardest to coordinate and keep efficient. So far, none of the correspondents to the AC4 list have espoused this option. One of the members noted that operational management and administrative computing should not be merged together; there is a possible need for a separate manager for each. Campus-level strategic planning is necessary to the successful future of both academic and administrative systems. Under this model, that might point to the need for three IT leaders rather than two: Academic, Administrative, and Operational/Infrastructure, making coordination even more problematic.

Although there was not much Council discussion of Option 4, the Chair noted that there was some support on the maillist for having an Executive Director that just gets on with the job. Some members see Options 2 and 4 as not very different, since the Academic leader will not be expected to be extensively knowledgeable in technology. The lack of accountability and the probable inability to respond quickly were other areas of concern with Option 4. It was also pointed out that the Councils and ITPB have a lot of power and resources, and depending on how they wield those, the IT leader may be forced into a de facto Utility Director position.

Given all the above, there is broad support for the idea of not freezing the structure in the recruitment position description. This would permit the recruiting committee much more leeway in their screening of candidates, and give the campus a better opportunity to select the best candidate. There is also the feeling that it would be unwise to change the structure of IT while recruitment is underway, since that would most likely result in two upheavals to the staff.

In addition, it is critical that the IT leader sit on all appropriate high-level committees on campus; that has been one of the failings in the past. An alternative proposal, therefore, is for the IT leader to hold both a Vice Chancellor and a Vice Provost title, since they need standing in both areas.

Another area of consensus was the need for whoever takes the IT leadership position(s) to be made aware of the unique UCD campus culture and the need for connecting to all campus constituencies from the very first. It is also felt that there has been little effort so far to define systematically the actual needs of the faculty relative to information technologies, and it is hoped that the Review Committee will list some of these. The optimal structure for a UC Davis IT organization may become more obvious once the needs are exposed and discussed. There is also strong agreement on the necessity for an overarching technology plan for the campus that needs to be done quickly, and that should include an implementation plan as well. It was noted that we have many of the infrastructure pieces in place (e.g., Network 21, campus wide email facilities) but lack an overall vision for their use.

Next Steps: The Steering Committee will draft a summary reflecting the Council discussion and bring it back to the next Council meeting.

Bill Hornof, Chair, reported that the Subcommittee has met twice and has targeted four areas for further discussion:

1. Information Access and Security Issues;
2. Teaching and Research Database Development;
3. Facility for Computer-Aided Instructional Modules;
4. Curriculum Information System.

The Subcommittee wants to put forth a 5-year vision statement and get agreement on it before delving too far into the intricacies of any one area. Nevertheless, most of their work so far has focused on defining the Teaching and Research Database, currently viewed as a repository for digitized images, sound, etc., that can be indexed and made available to faculty for incorporation into their courses. He hopes to have the draft of the vision in November. At that point, they can begin to delve into all the thorny details, such as who should have access, what about copyrights, and how to implement security.

Remote Access Issues Report: The Chair will send the final report to the members for their review before the next meeting.