1. Approval of minutes
2. LEAD Report
3. AC4 Ed Subcommittee Report on Student Computer Ownership
4. AC4 Research Subcommittee Report on Faculty Access to Computers

Absent: Robert Becker, Sheila Desai, Lamar Hestek, Dorothy Howe, Paula King, Jennifer Ramesh, Mel Ramey, Pat Turner, John Vohs.

Guest: Vicki Suter.

Staff to the Council: Gilda Garcia, Bob Loessberg-Zahl.

Announcements/Welcome
Marilyn Sharrow introduced John Bruno, Vice Provost-Information & Educational Technology. Jerry Hallee will continue as an AC4 member representing the Office of the Provost.

1. Approval of Minutes - Harry Matthews

   The October 18 AC4 minutes were approved as submitted.

2. LEAD Report - Vicki Suter
   Handouts:
   
   1. Learning Environment Architecture Development Project
   2. Summary Report

   Vicki went over the distributed handouts. Vicki needs AC4 input to get a sense if this is a sensible product for the LEAD Team. The feedback is that the information will be useful. The final report will be a summary on paper with additional in-depth information available on the Web.

   Vicki also explained the conceptual framework. The one example used is how email technology is mature. On the other hand, one could argue that it's immature if you look at the issues of signature, privacy, and implementation.

   In addition to plotting the current status, it is important to know the rate and direction of change of both needs and technology solutions. It would be good to have a Gartner Group assessment of how soon the changes are going to happen.

   Actions:
   

   1. AC4 members should plan on attending the LEAD Think Tank final working, session 8, which is an overview and summary of everything that happened the previous 7 sessions. Session 8 is scheduled on Friday, November 19, from 3 to 4 pm, at the Rec Pool Lodge.
   2. Vicki will schedule scenarios in January with a couple of AC4 groups

3. AC4 Ed Subcommittee Report on Student Computer Ownership - Matt Bishop
   Handout: Memo dated November 15, 1999, from AC4 Educational Subcommittee to Members of AC4 regarding Student Computer Requirements.

   The subcommittee has come up with three guidelines for computer ownership. (See handout for more details).

   1. The Campus expects students to have personal access to a computer that can connect to the Internet. It is recommended that students own a computer.

   2. The Campus should not issue detailed specifications for any type of computer system. The campus should specify a minimal set of software by function, rather than by vendor. The campus should provide some type of support for hardware and software on a fee-for-service basis.

   3. The campus should provide training for students.

   Actions:
   

   1. Marilyn Sharrow to send Matt information on what the Library is doing regarding student training.
   2. Zack O'Donnell to send Matt the contact in Student Housing for information on RESNET training for incoming students.
   3. Harry will take the item to the IT Policy Board to ask them to provide feedback on these policy guidelines.
   4. Continue discussion at a future AC4 meeting.

   Because of the announcement timetable, an implementation date of fall 2001 is more realistic than trying to do it by fall 2000. Specific requirements for those who have special needs (i.e., design students, engineering students) will be included.

4. AC4 Research Subcommittee Report on Faculty Access to Computers - Richard Plant
   Handout: Allocation of Funding for Faculty Computer Equipment

   This item has to do with resources for faculty to purchase computers. The discussion centered on funding available to faculty for the purchase of computers. Basically faculty computer needs are driven by research as well as by teaching. In terms of graduate training, supporting technical staff, teaching funds are not available to purchase computers In general, faculty are moderately successful in obtaining at least basic computing needs but they spend far too much time and energy in finding ad hoc ways to do this. The subcommittee recommends that the process be rationalized so that the funds we are already spending are used more efficiently as well as being augmented where necessary.

   The Committee on Research offers a program for computing funding but it's not enough.

   University of Indiana has established a plan to replace equipment for staff and faculty. They take into account that computers are as essential for operation as telephones and take into account the life cycle cost. Good deals have been obtained with vendors.

   Marilyn Sharrow recalled the program the Network 21 Budget & Policy Oversight committee instituted to purchase computers in bulk. The program wasn't successful because baseline computers were purchased and users wanted higher options.

   Actions:
   

   1. Richard Plant to bring back to AC4 a more detailed proposal.
   2. Richard Plant will meet with Bob Loessberg-Zahl, Jerry and Marilyn about providing funds for the purchase of computers for faculty.