Remote Access
- Handouts:
- Guiding Principles for Remote Access (distributed with agenda)
- Request for Information (RFI): Remote Access (distributed at the meeting)
The RFI document provides answers to key questions raised at a Steering Committee meeting held to discuss Remote Access. Council members are asked to review the document after the meeting.
Key issues (from the Steering Committee)
- Short-term problem-repair power supplies?
- Technology assessment - Rock (ETAC)
- Consequences of using ISP
- Payment model-sharing cost
- Distributed dial-in modems-cost, security
- Long-term implications of expanded Internet use
Richard Plant and Sheila Desai prepared the Guiding Principles document. It identifies an initial proposition for drafting remote access principles, and two primary remote access issues: 1) types of remote access, and 2) how to fund it. It is their interpretation and is intended to be used as a starting point.
Council members need to represent their constituencies on this topic. There is no easy solution to this problem. Council members expressed their different views on who should pay for remote access. Some think the campus should continue to provide the service, some think individuals need to pay for the access. One of the solutions might be to provide a certain number of access hours and ask students to pay for additional time. Some think access should be provided for those students who are required to access the Internet for their courses. There was some level of agreement that students need to have the Internet exposure as part of the educational experience. It needs to be understood that this is not currently a free service.
The Council's recommendation will go to the IT Policy Board where the decision will be made. The goal is to make a decision by June 1999; implementation of the decision will be a year after (July 2000).
There is concern about students who are not able to afford to pay for the service not having the opportunity to use the Internet. If the recommendation is to charge students, then a student fee referendum is one option so that charges can be added to fees covered by financial aid.
Marilyn Sharrow suggested the Council review the Network 21 Student Subcommittee Report of the Network Budget & Planning Oversight Committee. Some of this information is dated, but the documents provide a sense of what the student opinion was at the time. The RAMP report and the RFI document distributed today provide more recent data about what other campuses are doing with respect to remote access.
The technology assessment from ETAC should be ready for the January meeting.
Actions:
- Gilda to distribute Network 21 funding and subcommittee reports to AC4.
- Council members to:
- Brainstorm with their constituent groups about this topic to get their opinions.
- Reflect on today's discussion and be prepared to discuss at the next meeting.
- Identify other key issues
- Jennifer will talk to student leaders and has offered to present the information at a future meeting.
- Key Issues assignments (AC4 representatives need to get in touch with Paula to connect with IT staff members to get more information & report back to the Council at February's meeting)
- Technology assessment: Rock (ETAC), IT rep
- Consequences of using ISP: Matthews, IT rep
- Payment model-sharing cost: Steering Committee, IT Rep
- Distributed dial-in modems-cost, security: Rock, Bishop, IT Rep
- Long-term implications of expanded Internet use: Stenzel, IT Rep
- This will be a major agenda item at the February meeting
Instructional Technology Funds
Handout (distributed with agenda): Allocation of Instructional Tech Funds dated November 30, 1998
Note: This report is confidential. It is in the Members' Area and accessible only to members of the AC4.
Dr. Grey charged an Instructional Technology Funds Task Force to suggest principles and processes to guide the allocation of instructional technology funds made available to the campus by the UC Office of the President. The Task Force was composed of Jerry Hallee (Chair), Peter Dale, Bob Franks, Rick Keller, Paula King, Bob Loessberg-Zahl, and John Vohs. Their report was submitted to Grey on November 18, 1998. Dr. Grey asked AC4 to review the suggestions and provide advice to him by January 15, 1999. The Committee on Academic Planning & Budget Review (CAPBR) is also being asked to review the report and provide advice.
In addition to Instructional Technology funds, the Task Force identified the different fund sources available for applying technology to instruction:
- Instruction & Research funds
- Instructional Equipment Replacement (IER) Funds
- Instructional Use of Computing (IUC) Funds
- State Lottery Funds
- General Funds
Most of the 1998-1999 funds are one-time monies. The Task Force identified criteria to be used to guide the allocation decision.
The Council is asked to comment on the approaches and criteria suggested by the Task Force, and on the lists of projects (add, delete, prioritize the suggested list). The Council is encouraged to submit ideas for projects. Identification of the list of projects by January 15 is not as critical as meeting the deadline to give advice on the approaches and criteria. One point about the approach is that it makes more funds available to the 'have-not' departments than has been the case in the past.
Action: Council members to provide comments to Chair Matthews in the next couple of weeks. The AC4 Steering Committee will collate the responses. This will be a main agenda item for the January meeting.
AC4 Home | Meetings | 12/14/98