University of South Carolina
University Information Technology Council (UITC)

December 2, 2002

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, December 2, 2002, at 3 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

Members present were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Mr. Ken Corbett; Ms. Mary Cordray; Ms. Jane Jameson; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Dr. Mark E. Tompkins; and Dr. Juan E. Vargas. The members absent were: Ms. Kimberly Bone; Dr. Char Davis; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Mr. William Morris; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Mr. Adam O’Teri; Ms. Manasi Sinha; Mr. Jason Trenary; and Dr. Philip D. Watson.

Ex-Officio members present were: Ms. Alma Creighton, Ms. Lorie Edwards, and Mr. Troy A. Travis. The Ex-Officio member absent was Mr. Steve Adams. Dr. William F. Hogue, Mr. David L. Ott, and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt also attended.

1. Call to Order: Dr. Hogue called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for attending. He explained that he had just concluded a meeting with representatives from IBM and several USC faculty. The purpose of the meeting had been to identify areas of potential collaboration. The meeting had been informative, and he hoped it would yield positive results.
   
   
2. Draft Statement Regarding IT Expectations for New and Returning Students: Dr. Hogue asked Mr. Mullaney to present the draft IT statement for students; a copy was distributed to the members. [See Exhibit A.]
   
   Mr. Mullaney explained that the statement had been drafted using information provided during the October 21 presentation on Profiling Student Computing and comments by members of the UITC during the last meeting. It had been proposed to include the statement in the Students’ Guidelines for Computing and to have it available online via the student computing page with links to other departments. These links would take users to additional requirements that were site specific to individual departments. He requested feedback from those present.
   
   The Council discussed how and where, within the University’s website, the statement should be located. Mr. Travis said the way in which the University of Florida posted their information was very easy to navigate and was a good model. Dr. Hogue added that the statement could be a “spotlighted” feature, once approved, and it could be highlighted again at appropriate intervals consistent with when students and parents traditionally considered the purchase of personal computers: high school graduations, move-in day on campus, etc.
   
   Dr. Brown indicated he would encourage departments within his college to formulate additional baseline requirements. The Council had a discussion regarding information and the methods used to disseminate information to students.
   
   When Dr. Hogue inquired about the Regional Campuses, Ms. Cordray said the students attending Regional Campuses should likely have the same IT requirements as students at USC Columbia if the University was offering a seamless system.
   
   Specific questions were raised regarding the statement. One issue was whether or not to include the fact that the University had 100 computer labs on campus when the purpose of the statement was to encourage students to bring their own. Mr. Mullaney agreed to seek advice from Media Relations on word smithing and the public relations aspect of the document.
   
   Another concern was the issue of financial aid. It was suggested that the CIO’s Office encourage individual units to craft their own statement regarding available financial assistance. Dr. Hogue added that Mr. Mullaney’s draft could be used to form a template in which departments could fill in the blanks.
   
   In response to Mr. Ott’s position that the University would always provide students with some access to computers, Dr. Bajjaly offered a strong recommendation to parents that the quality of their children’s education would be greatly enhanced through a personal computer.
   
   Mr. Mullaney agreed to reword the draft statement incorporating the comments by the Council and suggestions provided by representatives from Media Relations. He would distribute the revised document to the entire UITC.
   
   Dr. Hogue offered to present the final statement to the Council of Academic Deans during its first or second meeting in January 2003.
   
   
3. Affinity Exercise to Help Identify, Categorize, and Prioritize IT Services, Support, and Initiatives: Dr. Hogue raised the question of how to determine which IT services should be provided by the institution, which should be the responsibility of the departmental units, and which should be set by the individual. One popular taxonomy from an Educause journal listed Network, Servers, Applications, Desktop Support, and Information Access on a continuum of support from highly centralized to highly decentralized. He proposed an affinity exercise for the members to try to aggregate services.
   
   The members were asked to list specific IT services according to responsibility area. Items of institutional responsibility were to be written on green Post-it Notes, departmental responsibilities were to be on pink, individual responsibilities were to be on blue, and yellow Post-its were provided in case someone was not sure of the responsibility area. The group was also asked to affix each Post-it under the appropriate heading: Network Academic or Network Administration; Servers Academic or Servers Administration; Applications Academic or Applications Administration; Desktop Support Academic or Desktop Support Administration; or Information Access Academic or Information Access Administration.
   
   After discussion regarding terminology and the differences in individual perceptions, all members present participated.
   The results of this activity would be transcribed into a reasonable form and distributed to the Council. Dr. Hogue would attempt to map it to the work of the SACS self-study.
   
   
4. Recommendations to Present to the Administrative Council (AC) on January 7th: Dr. Hogue explained that President Sorensen had called an administrative planning retreat for January 7, 2003. Dr. Hogue wanted to present the current state of IT affairs at the University and discuss in what direction the institution needed to move. He would use data from the previous exercise, and he requested additional assistance from the Council.
   
   In his report to the AC, Dr. Hogue would address and make recommendations regarding: 1) Planning and Assessment, both strategic and tactical; 2) Resource Allocation; 3) Policy; 4) External Relations such as Educause, Internet 2, other institutions, and vendors; and 5) Operations such as dial tone and access.
   
   He wanted the members to provide their thoughts on ways in which the University could progress in each of the five areas. His goal was to present ideas for inexpensive initiatives that would promote a positive perspective. He asked the Council to send their ideas to him via email.
   
   
5. College of Liberal Arts’ InfoTech 2003: Mr. Mullaney said the College of Liberal Arts began holding an InfoTech Conference three years before to share ways in which technology was being used in the classroom. Last year, the conference was expanded to include participants from across the university. In 2003, the conference would again be held during the Maymester. Mr. Mullaney asked the members to begin considering topics they might want to present, and he promised to distribute the InfoTech 2003 URL to the Council.
   
   Dr. Hogue added that President Sorensen had agreed to give the keynote address at InfoTech 2003.
   
   
6. Future Meetings of UITC: When asked, no one objected to maintaining the current meeting schedule for the subsequent semester.
   
   Dr. Hogue thanked everyone for attending and declared the meeting adjourned.
   

Exhibit A

STUDENT COMPUTER OWNERSHIP

The University of South Carolina utilizes the latest high-speed fiber and wireless technologies to provide network connectivity to electronic information resources from offices, classroom labs, dorm rooms and common areas. There are over 100 public and private computing labs and centers across campus to assist students in accessing IT services including: academic advisement and registration, email, Web access, class assignments, syllabi and course management systems, personal records, meal cards, etc.

USC expects all students, irrespective of year level, to have access to these computing resources and strongly recommends students own a personal computer. Since computing facilities are generally not open 24x7, most students benefit from owning their own computer. Surveys show 94% of incoming freshmen bring a computer with them to campus.

Each student is entitled to use the campus network free of charge to access information resources for educational purposes, to facilitate communication, to provide access to information and to assist in the preparation of assignments. Users must be responsible for their actions and be aware that access may be reduced as a consequence of misuse of the system. See Student Guidelines for Responsible Computing for more information on student computing policies at USC.

See grin.sc.edu for general system configuration recommendations. Financial aid may be available to assist you with computer expenses, include purchase or lease costs as well as charges for Internet services, supplies, printing, and maintenance.

Apple and Dell are preferred computer vendors for USC and both offer special educational discounts to students, faculty and staff for personal purchases. The Premier Dell.com site and Store.Apple.com offers a range of choices that will meet the needs of most people. To check prices, get more information or place an order, go to:

Dell Computer - Faculty, Students and Staff or call Dell direct at 1-800-274-7799.
The Apple Store (U.S.) or call Apple direct at 1-800-800-2775.

Be sure to check Computer Ownership Guidelines by Department to determine if your specific major has additional computer recommendations or requirements appropriate to your degree program.



---

University of South Carolina
University Information Technology Council (UITC)

November 4, 2002

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, November 4, 2002, at 3 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

Members present were: Ms. Kimberly Bone; Mr. Ken Corbett; Ms. Jane Jameson; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Mr. William Morris; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Dr. Mark E. Tompkins; Mr. Jason Trenary; and Dr. Philip D. Watson. Members absent were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Ms. Mary Cordray; Dr. Char Davis; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Mr. Adam O’Teri; Ms. Manasi Sinha; and Dr. Juan E. Vargas.

The Ex-Officio member present was Mr. Troy A. Travis. The Ex-Officio members absent were: Mr. Steve Adams, Ms. Alma Creighton, and Ms. Lorie Edwards. Dr. William F. Hogue, Mr. David L. Ott, and Ms. Nancy Hart also attended.

1. Call to Order: Dr. Hogue called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for attending.
   
   
2. Top Ten IT Issues: Dr. Hogue distributed a list of the top ten IT issues from the 2002 Educause survey of several hundred member universities. The items were consistent with the key issues identified at USC. They were: 1.) Administrative Systems/ERP; 2.) IT Funding Strategies; 3.) Faculty Development, Support, and Training; 4.) IT Strategic Planning; 5.) Security Management; 6.) Online Student Services; 7.) Teaching and Learning Strategies; 8.) Distance Education; 9.) Maintaining Network Infrastructure; and 10.) Emerging Network Technologies.
   
   Dr. Hogue suggested that Research Computing should be added to USC’s list, and he said that Educause compiled the list annually.
   
   
3. IT Expenditures for 2001-2002: Dr. Hogue distributed a chart listing approximate IT expenditures for the entire USC System for 2001-2002. [See Exhibit A.] He appreciated the efforts of Judy Owens, Lorie Edwards, Joanne Bost, and individuals in the Business and Finance Office in pulling together the information. The numbers were consistent with the numbers from last year as compiled for the Strategic Directions and Initiatives Committee.
   
   Dr. Hogue noted that the Classified Personnel category included only individuals with primary IT functions and not people like telephone operators or those who handle IT billing functions. Also, the total IT expenditures excluded fringe benefits that would have increased the total from $43.4 to approximately $47 million. The amounts listed as total IT expenditures did not reflect the FY 02 budget; they were the amounts of
   actual expenditures.
   
   Dr. Hogue explained that the totals did not include unclassified personnel, misclassified personnel, IT as part of construction or renovation, support staff, etc.
   
   When reviewing the top IT issues, the University should be mindful of where IT resources were currently and the ability to shift those resources within units. With declining budgets, the opportunity now existed to consider how the University would architect its IT, support, structure, and decisions if it were starting from scratch.
   
   Responsibility for IT services could be might be categorized into three areas. First, what were the institutional requirements and what services would the institution provide? For example, the institution is expected to provide a registration system. Second, what were the responsibilities and expectations of the disciplines / departmental units? An example might be discipline-specific software applications. Third, what did the University expect of the individuals? Are students, for example, responsible for providing their own computing tools?
   
   Dr. Hogue called for questions and comments from the members of UITC. Mr. Mullaney said that VCM could help answer some of the questions and asked which funds would be affected. Dr. Hogue replied that only A Funds, those that were state appropriated, would fall under VCM. The A Funds would remain in the generating academic department, and the central units would provide services funded by an assessment. Mr. Kelly had reported during the previous meeting that VCM might shine a light on areas that were poorly funded, such as deferred maintenance in buildings. It would not fix problem areas, but it might highlight them.
   
   Dr. Meade questioned if the UITC should wait on VCM or if it should propose a model in advance. Dr. Hogue said that UITC should be prepared to suggest which models make sense for IT. Discussion ensued about the risks associated with rethinking how IT is modeled at the University.
   
   The Council was asked to consider if it wanted to recommend a statement to the Council of Deans and the Administrative Council about IT organization at USC.
   
   Mr. Morris suggested that the UITC should answer the question of what should be the institution’s responsibility. The full Council should participate in the discussion because everyone would be interested and there would be plenty of content for a full meeting and discussion. Dr. Tompkins added that perhaps talking points could be formed into an agenda for open and diverse groups to have brainstorming sessions that might help UITC to outline the overarching expectations of faculty.
   
   There was much discussion about the potential for effectiveness and the similar work completed during the SACS reaccreditation process. Dr. Hogue said his office would begin gathering data and he would try to frame the questions as well as a template to assist in the collection of consistent data.
   
   Dr. Phil S. Moore explained why and how the University determines to which other institutions it compared itself. He indicated that he would distribute a list of comparable institutions to the UITC. Discussion continued regarding how the University compared with other institutions regarding IT.
   
   Dr. Hogue said he was considering forming a “blue ribbon panel” of colleagues to review the University’s current environment and make suggestions to help build upon the SACS’ report and recommendations. Dr. Meade added that if other CIOs and external experts supported the findings and proposals of the UITC, it would lend a great deal of credibility.
   
   Mr. Mullaney offered to take the issue of student/academic computing, with other members of UITC, and return with recommendations for a policy or a statement of expectations for Dr. Hogue to take to the Provost, the Council of Deans, and the Administrative Council.
   
   Discussion ensued regarding the composition of the committees, their specific objectives, and the process by which action items moved forward within the UITC. The Council members agreed to be flexible and to try to address these concerns to better define the UITC.
   
   Dr. Hogue thanked everyone for attending and declared the meeting adjourned.
   




---

University of South Carolina
University Information Technology Council (UITC)

October 21, 2002

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, October 21, 2002, at 3 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

Members present were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Mr. Ken Corbett; Mr. Mike Dollar; Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Mark E. Tompkins; Dr. Juan E. Vargas; and Dr. Philip D. Watson. Members absent were: Ms. Kimberly Bone; Ms. Mary MacDonald Cordray; Dr. Char Davis; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Mr. William Morris; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Mr. Adam O’Teri; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Ms. Manasi Sinha; and Mr. Jason Trenary.

Ex-Officio members present were: Mr. Steve Adams, Ms. Alma Creighton, Ms. Lorie Edwards, and Mr. Troy A. Travis. Dr. William F. Hogue, Mr. Rick Kelly, Mr. David L. Ott, Ms. Melanie Verona, and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt also attended.

1. Call to Order: Dr. Hogue called the meeting to order; thanked everyone for attending; and introduced the new member, Ken Corbett, from Business and Finance. David Ott, Director of Computing Resources, Moore School of Business, was also recognized. Dr. Hogue directed attention to the agenda and called on Mr. Travis.
    
2. Profiling Student Computing: Mr. Travis said he had been asked to determine the baseline for student computing to help the University consider the question of student computer ownership.
   
   Mr. Travis outlined several critical areas: frame student computing; research and present information; broaden perspectives of the issue; reflect faculty interests, issues, and perceptions; suggest actions and processes for refining academic computing; and focus commitments and responsibilities.
   
   Data came from many sources: comments by Dave Brown, Provost of Wake Forest University; ten faculty in eight colleges; various IT directors; representatives from academic computing services at both Computer Services and DEIS; and about 20 books, surveys, reports, and studies.
   
   The profile of student owned technology had changed over the years. For comparative data see tables at http://it.sc.edu/doc/AccessUSC_files/v3_document.htm. 
   
   In response to a question from Dr. Vargas, Mr. Travis noted that the percentage of students with PDAs would be available as soon as Housing compiled the data from the current survey. Mr. Dollar asked about percentages for non-residential students, and Mr. Travis explained that no existing data could be found for non-residential students at USC.
   
   Mr. Travis presented data for student computing, during the previous fiscal year, on USC Columbia and on the system campuses, excepting USC Spartanburg (USCS). USC Columbia had 2,040 computers, 102 labs, and 90 megabits of Internet bandwidth. The USC System, less USCS, had 2,900 computers, 152 labs, and 90 megabits of Internet bandwidth with 30 megabits of Intra-campus bandwidth. The number of applications on these computers was unknown.
   
   Although there are no data at USC, a survey at the University of Colorado revealed that 72 percent of students used public computers, such as those in labs, less than two hours a week or not at all.
   
   To determine the value of the University’s assets, a conservative cost estimate was used: $1,500 per computer. [See tables for estimates of value.] There was no way to determine the cost of applications.
   
   The combined assets are: $3.1 million in 2,040 computers, $315,000 for Internet access, $27.6 million in 18,400 student owned computers, and $3.8 million for 520 megabits of student Internet access. Based on these assets the University should consider clarifying expectations and commitments and assigning resources and responsibilities to follow them.
   
   Mr. Travis divided computing devices, applications, and access into three categories. [See tables at http://it.sc.edu/doc/AccessUSC_files/v3_document.htm .]
   
   Several institutions of similar size and geography or peer institutions for performance funding were researched for their student computing requirements. The State University of New York - Buffalo recommended student computer ownership, the University of Virginia stated that it was expected and over 90 percent of their students owned a computer, the University of Florida required ownership and allowed it to be included in financial aid consideration, and the University of North Carolina and Clemson University had ubiquitous computing with a requirement for students to own laptops. It was noted that the University of Florida recognized that there were differing requirements for lower division, upper division, graduate, and professional students so they had a general requirement for all students and specific requirements for certain disciplines. Their website clearly displayed the general requirements and contained well orchestrated links to each college with its list of discipline specific requirements.
   
   At USC, faculty are concerned about resources, faculty development, support, equity, labs, and special needs applications. Although Mr. Travis had not been able to talk with students directly, he listed the following student issues: content and utilization, unspoken expectations, maximize investment, ubiquitous access, excellent education, financial aid, equity, and the fact that they tend to be nomadic. Other issues on the horizon included Value Centered Management (VCM), renegotiation of software licenses, and the proposed establishment of a Teaching and Learning Center.
   
   To develop a student technology strategy, the University should first decide what it needs and why it is needed; reach a consensus on the design; adopt it; then evaluate its effectiveness. This process could be achieved by formulating objectives, listening to focus groups of faculty and students, gathering additional data, drafting a plan, determining a forum to receive feedback, subsequently revising and presenting the plan, establishing a pilot, and then implementing it.
   
   Mr. Travis proposed possible objectives: to foster excellent education and scholarship; leverage all IT investments, student, institution, and program; focus University IT expenditures; fuel academic innovation; create a framework for flexibility, diversity, and change; and establish universal access. The process might create a clear statement of expectation that could be embraced by the faculty, students, individual disciplines, and the entire institution. Possibly a Responsibility and Allocation Plan could be developed regarding computer devices, applications, and access. A Communications Plan might also be developed.
   
   Dr. Hogue asked Dr. Watson to brief the Council on the School of Medicine’s (SOM) student computing requirement and shed additional light on the subject. Dr. Watson said that along with requiring students to have laptops came the problem of maintaining the computers. The SOM would diagnose hardware problems, but the students must seek external services for the repairs. There were eight individuals in the IT department of the SOM, and they attempted to resolve software problems for the students. Students could include their computers in their requests for financial aid, and student computer lab usage was greatly reduced.
   
   During the first year of the requirement, the faculty did not use the computers very much. There was an increase in usage in the second year. Copies of all Powerpoint presentations were provided to the students, and custom software was developed: one such application duplicated the microscope.
   
   Each clinical student was required to have a PDA to use medical school specific software. The students must maintain records of patient contacts, and PDA software existed that recorded patient contacts and was downloadable to a computer for online submission.
   
   Dr. Watson noted that all of the Veteran Administration (VA) campus was wireless, but he admitted that the SOM had not yet made good use of student laptops within the classroom.
   
   Dr. Hogue introduced Mr. Rick Kelly, Vice President for Business and Finance and CFO, who had joined the meeting in progress.
    
3. Current Status and Implications of VCM: Mr. Kelly briefed the Council on the move toward a Valued Center Management (VCM) budgeting process, and distributed a copy of the presentation he had provided to the University Board of Trustees.
   
   Mr. Kelly explained that VCM was the primary recommendation of the Strategic Directions and Initiatives (SDI) Committee. He acknowledged that the current process did not detail how budgets were established and that revenues should be returned to the revenue generating unit.
   
   A 26 member committee was established with deans, faculty, and staff. Based on the SDI recommendations, a schedule was set to run a parallel VCM model in FY 2003 with full implementation in FY 2004. It was determined that a “Straw Man” model was needed to try to establish baselines. Three types of funding existed: 1) appropriations and tuition, 2) auxiliary services such as housing, bookstore proceeds, and food services, and 3) research.
   
   It was proposed to allocate tuition to the academic unit that owns the credit-bearing courses generating the revenue with 75 percent to the teaching unit and 25 percent to the college of enrollment. Gross tuition revenue and net reductions would be allocated to each academic unit, and expenditure authority would be granted to each unit based on tuition estimates. Actual tuition revenues would be directly applied to each unit. The units would be held responsible for any difference between the actual and budgeted tuition revenue.
   
   Upon reviewing the tuition model, the committee agreed it would be beneficial to develop an elementary VCM model to assess the impact of proposed revenue and expenditure allocations on each academic unit. The model contained in the material distributed by Mr. Kelly was the first of probably many such attempts. It detailed the FY 2003 “A Fund” program budget for each academic unit, amount of the budget supported by departmentally controlled non-recurring revenues, fringe benefits paid by the general fund, future allocation of service costs for both facilities and other services, total recurring budget needs, allocation of tuition revenues - based on SDI approach of FY 2001 tuition by credit hour to the unit that owned the course, and amount of state subsidy required to keep the unit whole. All of the money could be placed in the academic units, then the units could be charged for facilities and other services.
   
   Research funds could be allocated at 50 percent to the general fund and 50 percent to the fund generating unit, with seven percent of each 50 percent being held in a building fund.
   
   Discussion ensued regarding allocations to specific academic units and the potential impact to admissions standards. Mr. Kelly said the VCM model would not set policy, it would only provide information to the administration to assist in decisions making. The developmental process must be followed through to its completion. Allowing one college to “eat up” another college would not be allowed. There were problems specific to the Honors College which did not teach students but contracted with other colleges to do so. Base budgets would need to be justified.
   
   Service units would be asked to produce revenue, but there would be a group of non-revenue producing service units such as the President’s Office, Office of the General Council, and Human Resources. There could be a tax charged for those units. Outsourcing of large units might be considered.
   
   Dr. Hogue thanked Mr. Kelly and added that IT would go through the review process and be required to justify every penny. In the process, outsourcing would be carefully considered.
    
4. Establishing the UITC Agenda for the Remainder of the Semester: Dr. Hogue asked the members of the Steering Committee to remain after the Council adjourned in order to discuss setting the agenda for UITC. The members of the Steering Committee agreed.
   
   Dr. Hogue thanked everyone for attending and declared the meeting adjourned.
   
   




---


University of South Carolina
University Information Technology Council (UITC)

September 30, 2002

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, September 30, 2002, at 3 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

Members present were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Ms. Kimberly Bone; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Ms. Mary MacDonald Cordray; Mr. Mike Dollar; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Mr. William Morris; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Mark E. Tompkins; Dr. Juan E. Vargas; and Dr. Philip D. Watson. Members absent were: Dr. Char Davis; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. Adam O=Teri; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Ms. Manasi Sinha; and Mr. Jason Trenary.

Ex-Officio members present were: Mr. Steve Adams, Ms. Lorie Edwards, and Mr. Troy A. Travis. Ms. Alma Creighton was absent. Mr. Kirk Chapman, Dr. William F. Hogue, and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt also attended.

1. Call to Order: Dr. Hogue called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for attending. He provided an agenda for each Committee stating that every attempt had been made to stay true to the minutes of the previous meeting. He emphasized that the Committees could use ex-officio members as their agendas required. The Steering Committee would caucus at 3:45 p.m. to determine a process for the Council to select a chair.
   
   Hearing no objections, the Council recessed while the Committees held their meetings.
   The Council reconvened at 4:15 p.m.
    
2. Committee Reports: Dr. Hogue asked each Committee to summarize its meeting.
   
   
   1. Academic Committee: Dr. Meade said that there was extreme overlap among the Committees and explained how dependent academic computing was on infrastructure. The committee had discussed the possibility of giving up academic resources to strengthen academic computing and had asked what were its near-term goals. The legislature needed to be educated about the needs and importance of academic computing by the University’s top-level administration. The Committee was willing to help enable the administration to do so.
      
      Dr. Hogue stated that if President Sorensen were in attendance, he would most likely request that someone write him a paragraph of very specific, concrete examples, that would give him accurate information to provide to the members of the General Assembly.
      
      Dr. Meade suggested that the Administrative Committee draft such a paragraph during its next meeting.
      
      In response to a question from Mr. Hinckley regarding the President’s position on IT matters, Dr. Hogue said he would invite President Sorensen to a subsequent meeting of the UITC.
       
   2. Administrative Committee: Ms. Blaney reported that the Administrative Committee was also concerned with overlap among the committees. The replacement of the legacy systems was very important, but its success was contingent upon a sound base of infrastructure and architecture, i.e. uniform authentication, email systems, and the web. Desktop support had been discussed, and the group questioned the appropriateness of the Administrative Committee in its current configuration. It might become necessary to separate it into two sub-committees.
       
   3. Infrastructure Committee: Mr. Brown stated that there was a great need to address a universal directory system. The Committee was gathering data and had scheduled an overview of the basic infrastructure, security issues, and a Q/A session on Friday, October 25 in Computer Services Auditorium from 1:30-4:30 p.m. He invited all members of the Council.
      
      Dr. Hogue encouraged everyone to attend and suggested that the Committee open it up to any other appropriate members of the University community. He asked that the Council members remember that only one perspective would be presented during the overview on October 25 and that it was not the only perspective to consider.
      
      Mr. Brown concluded that wireless security and standards were key issues and that the Infrastructure Committee would continue to gather data.
       
   4. Resource and Policy Committee: Mr. Mullaney said the Committee needed background information on VCM and its implications. It would be parsing out core functions to determine which ones were crucial to the University and make comparisons of other institutions. He said the Committee would continue its ongoing discussion of budget issues.
      
      Dr. Hogue suggested inviting Dr. Olsgaard to present the status of the VCM proposal.
       
   5. Steering Committee: Dr. Tompkins said there was a consensus that no member was suited to the role of Chair of UITC based on their limited understanding of the broad aspects of IT at the University. Therefore, the Steering Committee encouraged Dr. Hogue to serve as Convener and to facilitate the meetings of the UITC.
      
      Dr. Hogue appreciated the distinction in “convening” the meeting because he was not comfortable chairing the group that had been established to advise him. He wanted to avoid a conflict of interest, and asked the Steering Committee to guide the setting of the agenda.

   
   

3. CIO Report:
   
   
   1. IT Update Since September 16th Meeting: Dr. Hogue stated that the Move-In-Day Survey data from the current year would be available by the end of October. Mr. Travis added that there were approximately 7,000 students in the residence halls. Ninety percent of them had registered their machine addresses online.
      
      Dr. Hogue said IT had received recognition recently. The September 25th edition of the Gamecock had an article on students’ use of Blackboard, and the most current USC Times touted the Computer Services Technicians’ record number of student connections made during move-in weekend. Copies of the publications were circulated for the members to read.
      
      Dr. Hogue had recently sent two letters to the University’s CFO, Rick Kelly. The first letter was about the telephone long distance rates charged to students and the rates charged to faculty and staff. In the second letter, Dr. Hogue stated the replacement for the legacy systems could cost $50 million, and he requested a place holder of $5 million annually to fund it. It was necessary to get the request in the budget cycle. No response had been received from Mr. Kelly.
      
      Ms. Blaney briefed the Council on the presentation made by PeopleSoft to replace the Student Information Systems aspect of the legacy systems. She had been encouraged by their presentation and the fact that the company had overcome adversity and developed a philosophy to work with other companies’ software. She would continue to review the work of PeopleSoft and to watch the Student Information Systems’ implementation at the University of Indiana and at the University of Wisconsin - Madison.
       
   2. List of Submitted Budget Items to Be Addressed: The Administrative Council (AC) discussed the budget issue and possibilities for addressing the potential reduction in state appropriations. Dr. Hogue had asked UITC and Network Managers for budget items. There was great interest in the rates issue. The following was submitted:
      
      1. Basic IT Budget Overview - all funding sources and major expenditure categories.
      2. Rates for Fee-Based Services - how are categories determined, how are rates calculated, what is the review and approval process? How is a unit to predict which services are centrally provided “for free” and which require some form of payment? Examples of fees to be reviewed: printing, computer room space, web services, contractual services, desktop support, server support, network installs and moves, and telephone basic charges, moves, installs, and long distance rates.
      3. Student Technology Fee - review of current and future uses.
      4. Planning for Unit IT Expenditures - how to determine who pays for network management systems, desktop hardware and software replacement?
      5. Funding and Acquisition Strategies for Enterprise Databases Software - e.g. Oracle.

      
      Dr. Vargas questioned the fee of $7 per square foot for computer room space saying that he could get a better price outside of the University. Also concerned about network connection fees that included wireless, he asked if guests to his college who used a wireless connection would also be charged.
      
      Dr. Hogue offered to meet with him and anyone else regarding these issues but said he needed the opportunity to gather data. Dr. Tompkins stated it would be useful to have the discussion before the subsequent meeting of UITC.
      
      

   3. Report of Student Technology Fee Expenditures - FY 2001-02: Dr. Hogue distributed an overview of the Technology Fee Expenditures for 2001-02. Ms. Edwards explained that actual expenditures were pulled from the Data Warehouse and divided into ten categories. Of the total ($2,117,880), Blackboard comprised four percent ($92,760) and direct support to student/public labs used nine percent ($196,905). Infrastructure support was the largest category with 28 percent ($579,814); it included expenses for firewalls, intrusion detection, security audit, 6513 core router, Horseshoe wireless, token ring to ethernet conversion, hub to switch conversion, and the separate physical student network.
      
      The Internet Bandwidth was 15 percent ($315,501) of the total. In response to a question, Ms. Edwards explained that the cost of Internet2 was paid out of a separate account. The McAfee Virus Software Site License was eight percent ($164,860); the Microsoft Campus Agreement was ten percent ($219,429); the Novell Campus License was eight percent ($158,881); and miscellaneous software was one percent ($16,755). Miscellaneous software included items for the Web search engine and for DARS. Enhancements to VIP comprised three percent ($72,975) and enabled faculty to input grades and students to vote. There was also a transfer to the CIO Initiatives Account of 14 percent ($300,000).
      
      Discussion ensued and it was noted that network enhancements had never received any appropriated funding. Technology Fee expenditures for the current year would be discussed in more detail when the budget could be an agenda item.

   
   

4. Establishing the UITC Agenda for October 7th: Dr. Hogue asked the members to email agenda items directly to him.
   
   Dr. Hogue thanked the members for attending and declared the meeting adjourned.




---

University of South Carolina
University Information Technology Council (UITC)

September 16, 2002

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, September 16, 2002, at 3 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

Members present were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Mr. Mike Dollar; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Mr. William Morris; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Mark E. Tompkins; Mr. Jason Trenary; and Dr. Juan E. Vargas. Members absent were: Ms. Kimberly Bone; Ms. Mary MacDonald Cordray; Dr. Char Davis; Mr. Adam O=Teri; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Ms. Manasi Sinha; and Dr. Philip D. Watson.

Ex-Officio members present were: Mr. Steve Adams; Ms. Alma Creighton; and Mr. Troy A. Travis. Ms. Lorie Edwards was absent. Dr. William F. Hogue and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt also attended.
Dr. Hogue called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for attending this first meeting of the fall semester. For informational purposes, he distributed a chart containing the Student Computer Fee Allocation for FY 2002-03. [See Exhibit A]

1.  

   Introduction, Review of UITC Purpose, Schedule for the Semester: Dr. Hogue said the Council was scheduled to meet two Mondays per month during the fall semester: September 16 & 30, October 7 & 21, November 4 & 18, and December 2 & 16. He asked if the members wanted to hold Committee meetings on one Monday and have the full Council meet during the alternate Monday or to divide each meeting day with the Committees meeting during the first hour and the Council meeting during the second hour. The latter was the preference of the group.
   
   Dr. Hogue explained that in making Committee assignments, he tried to provide everyone with his/her first choice. He offered to make any changes, but no one requested a different appointment. Therefore, the membership of each committee would be as follows:
    

   Academic Committee Stephen Bajjaly Steven Hinckley Douglas Meade William Morris Dwayne Porter Juan Vargas	Administrative Committee Barbara Blaney Kimberly Bone Mary Cordray Mike Dollar Jane Jameson Jason Trenary
   Infrastructure Committee Herbert Brown Philip D. Moore Philip S. Moore Philip Watson	Resource & Policy Committee Char Davis William Kettinger David Mullaney Mark Tompkins

   Dr. Hogue explained where, within the Osborne Building, each Committee would meet, and he charged them with two responsibilities during their first meeting. Each Committee was to elect a Chair and to identify at least three critical areas within their purview to focus attention during the coming year.
   
   Dr. Hogue distributed the survey “Excellence in Higher Education Organizational Checklist” from Rutgers University to each member and asked that everyone complete the form and return it before the beginning of the Council meeting at 4 p.m. The checklist covered seven critical dimensions of organizational functioning: leadership, strategic planning, external focus, information and analysis, faculty/staff and workplace focus, process effectiveness, and outcomes and achievements. Dr. Hogue asked that everyone respond to the questions from a University-wide perspective and include all local and centralized IT operations. The data from the surveys would be tallied, and the information would provide a starting point to establish a current baseline.
   
   It was noted that the University participated in the nationally recognized “Campus Computing” project distributed by Kenneth Green of the University of Southern California. This year, the project would provide individual institutions with comparative data from aspirant peer groups identified by the participants. It should prove useful information.
   Hearing no objections, the Council recessed while the Committees held their meetings.
   The Council reconvened at 4:10 p.m.
   
   

   • Organization of Committees and Breakout Sessions: Dr. Hogue emphasized that the Committees were encouraged to invite other members of the University community to join the meetings, and he asked that the Office of Information Technology be informed of any additional participants. He collected surveys and asked that a representative from each Committee provide the name of its newly elected Chair and stated the critical areas that had been identified.
     
     
     1. Academic Committee: Dr. Dwayne Porter was elected Chair in absentia. Mr. Hinckley reported that the election was contingent upon Dr. Porter’s willingness to serve. The three critical areas identified were: 1) support for academic computing - infrastructure problems and online course work; 2) Internet access, reliability, and capacity; and 3) the need to educate the legislature about information technology’s criticality in academia.
         
     2. Administrative Committee: Ms. Barbara Blaney was elected Chair. She reported that the Committee was concerned with 1) replacement of Administrative Legacy Systems, which included Human Resources, Payroll, Business and Finance, Advancement, and Student Information Systems; 2) a plan for funding and acquiring administrative desktops computers University-wide, but especially in academic units; and 3) uniform authentication and the standardization of adding software systems as they relate to enterprise systems.
         
     3. Infrastructure Committee: Mr. Herb Brown was elected Chair. He stated that the Committee recognized the need for an overview of all campus infrastructure and wanted to bring in experts to provide that information. The Committee also identified the following critical areas: 1) funding, 2) multimedia and distance educational support, 3) centralized directory structure, 4) future needs, such as wireless, security, Internet2, and personnel; and 5) a determination of what people, i.e. students, actually receive for their money.
         
     4. Resource and Policy Committee: David Mullaney and Mark Tompkins were elected as Co-Chairs. Dr. Tompkins stated that the Committee wanted to increase its membership to six or seven and would begin to identify people. He also said the Committee needed to gather and analyze information from SACS and other currently available resources regarding budgets and policies.
         
     5. Steering Committee: Dr. Hogue noted that the Steering Committee would be composed of Dwayne Porter, if he accepted the Chair of the Academic Committee, Barbara Blaney, Herb Brown, David Mullaney, Mark Tompkins, and Bill Hogue.

     
     

   • Overview of USC's Current IT Priorities and Hot Issues: Dr. Hogue briefed the Council on the report he gave to the Deans during their retreat in August 2002.
     
     Security and Privacy was the first issue, and it stemmed from a SACS' recommendation. Much progress had been made, but much more was needed. An audit of University security had been conducted as well as a review of related policies and procedures. Use of Social Security Numbers as identifiers was determined problematic and must be eliminated; firewalls must be strengthened; anonymous access to the University's network must be eliminated; VPNs would be established; security education must become mandatory; security policies should be rewritten; and coherent incident response teams should be established.
     
     There were many Academic Initiatives. The Provost favored the establishment of a Teaching, Learning, and Technology Center and asked Dr. Hogue to draft a charter for a Task Force which would be a small but influential group of faculty who would discuss the merits of a center. Blackboard had been successful, but additional choices needed to be identified. USC's Distance Education program compared favorably in its number of students reaching approximately 9,000 students. Future growth may be in online delivery; currently only five percent of the students were taught online. The Provost held $600,000 sacred for classroom enhancements, and there were 22 such projects underway this summer. Dean Paul Willis might be invited to the UITC in the near future to discuss potential collaboration with the Division of Libraries. There were many other departmental and program initiatives at the University.
     
     Administrative Initiatives included defining new business processes and enterprise software systems for human resources, payroll, accounting, purchasing, student systems, grants accounting, etc. Until they can be replaced, the existing old systems must be maintained and updated. Other concerns were with HIPAA, a privacy initiative to safeguard medical records which would go into effect October 2003, and the potential loss of many seasoned personnel due to the TERI initiative which encouraged retirement.
     
     Student Information Technology included a non-biased review of a variety of issues such as laptops, wireless, mobile communications, and optimized devises. The findings of this review process would be presented in three to four weeks.
     
     One need for the University's IT Infrastructure was to plan to increase capacity from a one to a ten gigabit backbone. Preparations were underway to enable the offering of cellular and wireless plans.
     
     External Relations were important, and the University needed to educate the legislature about its IT needs and to identify areas where it can be nationally competitive. Continuing to work with the private sector was emphasized, and the University must recognize its unique leadership position as the largest educational institution in the state.
     
     The issue of Communications included the University's web presence project which was moving forward. A web advisory board was needed to define the next steps, consider open architecture, and seriously explore portals. The non-technical aspects of the web presence would be transitioned to the new Vice President for Advancement upon his/her appointment.
      
     
   • Discussion of Student Technology Fee: Dr. Hogue noted that in Computer Services, there were 212 authorized position but only 184 were filled: that was an 18 percent vacancy. He also noted that a five percent budget cut would produce a combined reduction of $600,000 from Computer Services and Distance Education and Instructional Support. Every dean and administrative unit was facing the same problem. The expenditures of the Student Technology Fee would be distributed to the Resource and Policy Committee for initial review. Ninety-one percent of the expenditures were for recurring costs such as Blackboard, infrastructure support, Internet bandwidth, McAfee software, campus Microsoft licenses, Novell site licenses, VIP enhancements, etc. Although there were no other sources of funding these important initiatives, it was not good long-term policy that the funds were expended in this manner.
     
     Future allocations for the Student Technology Fee needed to be determined. The total would be between $1.8 and $1.9 million in the fall semester with a smaller amount in the spring semester.
     
     Because there was not sufficient time to discuss this very important matter, it would be tabled for the agenda of the September 30 meeting of UITC.
     Dr. Hogue thanked the members for attending and declared the meeting adjourned.

Exhibit A

Student Computer Fee Allocation For Academic Year 2002-2003
 

University of South Carolina
University Information Technology Council (UITC)

April 29, 2002

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, April 29, 2002, at 3 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

Members present were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Ms. Kimberly Bone; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Ms. Mary MacDonald Cordray; Dr. Char Davis; Mr. Mike Dollar; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Mr. William Morris; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Mr. Jason Trenary; and Dr. Philip D. Watson. Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Dr. Ronald J. Prinz; and Dr. Juan E. Vargas were absent.

Ex-Officio members present were: Mr. Steve Adams; Ms. Alma Creighton; Ms. Lorie Edwards; and Mr. Troy A. Travis. Dr. William F. Hogue and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt also attended.

Dr. Hogue presided. He called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for attending. He then distributed a document which was titled ABest Technology Practices in Higher Education.@ It called for the most compelling articles and projects to be published in the peer-reviewed journal, Campus-Wide Information Systems; the journal of technology on campus. The series of articles would identify technology applications at college and universities that were models for other programs. He encouraged those interested to submit articles.

I. Discussion and Decision on Proposed Committee Structure: Dr. Hogue proposed the establishment of specific committees of the Council and also suggested that the members hold every other Monday afternoon for meetings. He stated that the days selected would be opposite those reserved for the Graduate Council. One Monday would be used by the committees for their meetings, and the other Monday would be used by the full Council.

Dr. Hogue then proposed the following committee structure for discussion:

A. Academic Committee. The general purpose of this committee would be to advise the Division of Information Technology and - through the CIO - the Office of the Provost regarding the University's instructional and research technology initiatives, issues, and priorities, including those pertaining directly to students. Immediate agenda items for consideration:

• schedule an organizational meeting and select a chair;
• recommend additional members;
• establish a plan for liaison, as appropriate, with the Faculty Instructional Development Committee and the Distance Education Advisory Council;
• gather baseline information about the scope of instructional and research technology resources, current initiatives and issues, and plans for the coming year;
• identify major issues for consideration by the Committee e.g., What are the implications if USC requires computer ownership by all students? Should there be a Teaching and Leaming Center for faculty, and what role might instructional and research computing play in that decision? How might we plan for and administer internal academic IT grants?

B. Administrative Committee. The general purpose of this committee would be to advise the Division of Information Technology and through the CIO the Office of the Provost regarding the University's administrative technology initiatives, issues, and priorities. Immediate agenda items for consideration:

• schedule an organizational meeting and select a chair;
• recommend additional members;
• gather baseline information about the scope of administrative technology resources, current initiatives and issues, and plans for the coming year;
• identify major issues for consideration by the Committee e.g., replacement of legacy systems, opportunities for additional USC e services, uniform authorization and authentication issues, standardization of software and hardware.

C. Infrastructure Committee. The general purpose of this committee would be to advise the Division of Information Technology and through the CIO the Office of the Provost regarding the University's infrastructure initiatives, issues, and priorities. Immediate agenda items for consideration:

• schedule an organizational meeting and select a chair;
• recommend additional members;
• gather baseline information about the scope of infrastructure resources, current initiatives and issues, and plans for the coming year;
• identify major issues for consideration by the Committee e.g., wireless networking, network and systems security, the uses and future of Internet 2, connectivity to 4 year and Regional Campuses and other sites not physically contiguous to the Columbia campus, storage area networks (SANs).

D. Resource and Policy Committee. The general purpose of this committee would be to advise the Division of Information Technology and through the CIO the Office of the Provost regarding the University's information technology budget and policy issues and priorities. Immediate agenda items for consideration:

• schedule an organizational meeting and select a chair;
• recommend additional members;
• establish a plan for liaison, as appropriate, with the Faculty Senate Budget Committee;
• gather baseline information about the scope of resource and policy issues that need to be addressed for the coming year and beyond;
• identify major issues for consideration by the Committee e.g., assessment of likely outcomes for academic support organizations upon implementation of value centered management (VCM); methods to determine USC IT priorities; comprehensive review of University wide IT expenditures; review of rate structures; identification of IT policies that need immediate review and revision.

E. Steering Committee. The general purpose of this committee would be to advise the Division of Information Technology and through the CIO the Office of the Provost regarding the agenda and overall effectiveness of the University Information Technology Council (UITC). This committee would be composed of chairs of the committees described above, the chair and/or vice chair of UITC, the CIO (ex officio), and other members as determined by the committee. The Steering Committee would be formed upon selection of chairs of each of the other committees.

Hearing no objections from the Council members, Dr. Hogue asked that each member submit via email his/her preference for committee assignments. Everyone was encouraged to list first and second choices along with their least favorite. It was noted that some overlap may occur, and it was hoped that the committees could meet during the summer for organizational purposes.

II. Summary of IT Budget Outlook for FY02/03: Dr. Hogue said the budget outlook for FY 2002-03 was not promising. President Palms had given the Board of Trustees his estimate of the state appropriations anticipating them to be the same as they were in the year he was appointed president.

The UITC would not need to spend time considering projects that had no funding, but a great deal of review would be needed to prepare for Value Centered Management (VCM.)

The University had received multiple cuts from the base budget during this fiscal year and faced a cumulative cut of nine percent in July.

Mr. Adams noted that there had been enormous growth in technology based teaching environments, and it was a struggle for DEIS to keep up without adequate funding. Ms. Edwards added that Computer Services was not able to fill any vacancies.
The consensus of the members present was that approximately ninety percent of budgets were spent on salaries. A nine percent budget cut would remove almost everything else.

Mr. Adams said there would be four Apresentation friendly@ classrooms next year. Twenty-five classrooms were selected for enhancements of data/LCD projection, VCR, and data ports. This would bring the total number of general classrooms with projector capabilities to 50. Mr. Adams agreed to distribute the list of these rooms to the UITC via its listserv.

Ms. Blaney stated that the Office of the Registrar could not eliminate any more paper without changing its work flow process, and they might review commencement expenses such as paper diplomas and paper letters.

Mr. Trenary said that in the School of Music, there were faculty members that had computers that were seven years old.

Dr. Kettinger noted some faculty in the Moore School of Business turn in their computers and purchase laptops with their own money pending a wireless network proposed for the fall. He added that it was very difficult to support equipment when there was no control over the type of equipment selected.

Mr. Hinckley said the School of Law had many problems with the personal computers they had recently purchased. He added that a wireless infrastructure was forthcoming for the School of Law, but its building was difficult to wire because of the presence of asbestos.

III. Preparation for New President and for New Dean of Libraries: Dr. Hogue stated that for different reasons the new President and the new Dean of Libraries should receive a short, briefing book upon arrival. He asked for assistance from the Council in determining which issues should be highlighted and put on the Aradar@ for the President and for the Dean. He offered his appreciation for feedback the Council members might provide.

IV. Summary of Infotech 2002: Dr. Hogue distributed information regarding the College of Liberal Arts=s InfoTech 2002 Conference, and he encouraged participation. Mr. Mullaney added that during the InfoTech Conference held the previous year, there were 15 presentations. For this year, it had been opened to the entire University, and 80 presentations were scheduled.

When there were no other matters to come before the UITC, Dr. Hogue thanked the members for being faithful and declared the meeting adjourned.

University of South Carolina
University Information Technology Council (UITC)

April 8, 2002

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, April 8, 2002, at 3 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

Members present were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Ms. Kimberly Bone; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Dr. Char Davis; Mr. Mike Dollar; Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Mr. William Morris; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Dr. Ronald J. Prinz; and Dr. Philip D. Watson. Ms. Mary MacDonald Cordray; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Mr. Jason Trenary; and Dr. Juan E. Vargas were absent.

Ex-Officio members present were: Ms. Lorie Edwards and Mr. Troy A. Travis. Ms. Alma Creighton and Mr. Steve Adams were absent. Dr. William F. Hogue; Dr. Daniel D. Barron; Mr. Lee Goodman; and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt also attended.

Dr. Hogue presided, calling the meeting to order. He thanked everyone for attending and welcomed Dr. Barron.

I. Discussion of the "Report of the Consulting Visiting Team": Dr. Daniel D. Barron, Professor in the College of Library and Information Science and former Co-Director of the University=s SACS Self-Study, gave an overview of the report of the SACS' visit.

The efforts by the Alternative Self-Study Consulting Group were not only to help facilitate the University=s reaccreditation, but to create a document, written by members of the University community, that would be the impetus for change based on an internal understanding of the needs of the institution. Approximately 300 people were involved in the self-study, and Dr. Barron emphasized the importance of the document because it reflected the findings of the institution via its members.

Dr. Barron distributed three documents. The first contained primary elements of the SACS Alternative Consulting Group. The status of these findings must be reported in five years. The second document was titled AResponses to SACS related specifically to IT matters.@ The University must comply with the SACS recommendations by fall 2002. The University=s responses were also contained in this document. The third document listed Recommendations from the SACS Alternative Self Study. SACS was looking for a strategic plan, but the Self Study created a strategic vision. The Writing and Oversight Team thought that it was important for the University community to be involved.

Overall, the recommendations of the SACS visiting team were positive. During the previous re-accreditation process in 1990, 157 recommendations were given to the University. In 2002, only 17 recommendations were given.

Dr. Barron outlined several suggestions including reconsideration of the strategic planning process with each unit having a plan that would include faculty involvement, creation of several advisory groups and councils, and the establishment of a teaching and learning center. He had met with Dr. Hogue and Provost Odom to discuss specific recommendations that were not required by SACS but that he felt were very important such as the Informatics Task Force that had been constituted and subsequently tabled.

Dr. Hogue added that there were three factors which influenced the suspension of the Informatics Task Force: 1) budget cuts imposed by the General Assembly, 2) establishment of the Strategic Directions and Initiatives (SDI) Committee, and 3) a possible need to revisit the Task Force charter. Dr. Hogue said that the Provost would support some type of teaching and learning center and that he remained committed to several specific concepts. The Provost was adamant that any proposed teaching and learning center focus on teaching; technology could be a catalyst, but the objective would be improvement of teaching.

In response to a question, Dr. Barron said the proposed teaching and learning center could be either a place or a virtual study center; its design should be based on the wants and needs of the community.

Dr. Barron offered his appreciation of the time and effort given by those present who had participated in the SACS process.

II. Update and Action on Internal IT Grants Program: Dr. Hogue said that it had been determined to form a subcommittee to review the proposed internal IT grants program. The membership of the sub-committee would be Stephen Bajjaly, Herb Brown, Doug Meade, and David Mullaney. Provost Odom had endorsed the concept of the IT grants program.

III. Discussion of UITC Charter and Proposed Committee Structure: Dr. Hogue called attention to the proposed UITC Charter stating it would be the first item on the agenda for the subsequent meeting of this council.

The following committee structure was proposed by Dr. Hogue: Academic IT Issues, Administrative IT Issues, Resources, Policies, and Infrastructure. Other council members proposed a committee to watch for emerging technologies and one for student IT issues. Discussion ensued regarding the various committees that had been proposed and what types of issues each would review.

IV. Other Matters:

A. Strategic Plan: Dr. Moore, Director of Assessment, was asked to address the current year=s Strategic Plan. Dr. Moore explained that it had been decided that requiring every department to complete a comprehensive Strategic Plan, as in previous years, would be an exercise in bureaucracy because many people were tired from their involvement in the work of SDI and the future reporting structure of many units had not been determined. Each unit was asked to submit a report examining reallocation of resources due to budget cuts.

B. Network Security: Ms. Edwards, Director of Computer Services, briefed the council on the status of network security. A Security Task Force of the Network Managers had been formed. Tools were in place to address breaches in security, but the University needed to make improvements. Data on shadow systems was not always secure, and it needed to be cleaned and kept clean.

A security consultant firm, Cyberwatch, had been hired to address the problems. Development of policies were needed that would help with such things as requiring passwords of all users. Mobility testing of core routers and the five subnets in Computer Services and the Library was tentatively scheduled to begin April 15, 2002. For an additional fee of $75,000, Cyberwatch would address the entire University.

Dr. Hogue emphasized the importance of securing the University, electronically. Security is also a requirement of SACS reaccreditation. The UITC would have a role in determining security and guiding the model that would be established.

C. Budget Reduction: Dr. Hogue outlined the budget reductions for the upcoming year. A one percent cut would be made across the board, and 1.52 percent would be sequestered. The President and Provost decided to prioritize IT by not requiring IT to sequester the full 1.52 percent. But, the budget of Computer Services had been reduced by $105,000 which would freeze several vacant positions.

D. Dean of Libraries: Dr. Hogue stated that Paul Willis of the University of Kentucky had accepted the position of Dean of Libraries and would begin his tenure at Carolina in July 2002. He had been successful in digitizing the library at the University of Kentucky, and his input in the proposed teaching and learning center would be helpful.

It was noted that the last two UITC meetings of the semester would be held April 22nd and April 29th.

There were no other matters to come before the UITC, and Dr. Hogue declared the meeting adjourned.

University of South Carolina
University Information Technology Council (UITC)

March 18, 2002

The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, March 18, 2002, at 3 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

Members present were:  Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Ms. Kimberly Bone;

Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Ms. Mary MacDonald Cordray; Dr. Char Davis; Mr. Mike Dollar; Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Mr. William Morris; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; and Dr. Ronald J. Prinz.  Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Dr. Juan E. Vargas; and Dr. Philip D. Watson were absent.

Ex-Officio members present were:  Mr. Steve Adams; Ms. Lorie Edwards; and Mr. Troy A. Travis.  Ms. Alma Creighton was absent.  Dr. William F. Hogue also attended.

Dr. Hogue presided, calling the meeting to order.  He thanked everyone for attending.

  I.        Review of SACS Self-Study:  Ms. Barbara Blaney, University Registrar, gave an overview of the report of the Writing and Oversight Team (WOT) from the self-study conducted prior to the SACS' visit.

The Team considered recommendations included in the Task Force Reports; suggestions gathered in forums with, and surveys by, faculty, staff, students, and alumni; information on the SACS website; as well as deliberations among the members of the WOT.  Three primary areas of concern were listed:  access, communication, and support.

The University community must have access to appropriate and reliable IT resources. Communication among the members of the University and beyond its boundaries is essential for the institution and for the state.  Support for the University community when needed (infrastructure and its functions, applications, and every learning preference) is fundamental.

Several recommendations were made to create a seamless University and to create a number of councils and organizations to foster communications.  Included were the University IT council, an academic IT council, a student advisory council for IT, an administrative IT council, a sustainable learning community task force, an office for school-University partnerships, a community research and service task force, an informatics and information professions task force, and a regional campus issues talk force.

Access and leadership recommendations included a comprehensive data warehouse for physical infrastructure; a comprehensive plan to insure successful learning and teaching, productive scholarship, and worthwhile service; improved support for Library and Information Services; evaluation of the University's Web Presence; a comprehensive plan for developing e- commerce; revision of the Strategic Planning process; emphasis on serving the needs of K-16; taking a leadership role in forging a statewide academic library cooperative; continuation of expanding alternatives for adult students; a comprehensive plan to leverage the University's resources for the development of IT related businesses; and development of a Center for Community Research and Service.

Discussion regarding these recommendations ensued.  It was noted that the UITC was created as a result of these suggestions.

Dan Barron would discuss the SACS' Report during the subsequent UITC meeting.

 II.        Discussion of Possible Internal IT Grant Program:  Dr. Hogue said that $300,000 of the Student Technology Funds had been distributed to the Office of Information Technology (OIT); it was probably the only margin available in the entire division.  He commended Ms. Edwards' efforts, but stated that no margin was foreseeable from Computer Services' accounts.

Of the funds distributed to OIT in the current year, approximately $285,000 remain.  Dr. Hogue suggested taking $100,000 of that money and establishing a grant program.  He also noted that there might be future opportunities to supplement these funds with resources from IT vendors.

Ideally, the grants would provide instructional and academic benefits, encourage cross disciplinary endeavors, and be highly visible to the University community. The UITC would determine the peer review process and could possibly leverage matching funds.  It was proposed that a subcommittee of four or five develop simple criteria for awarding the grants.

Members questioned if establishing such a grant program was the best use of the funds, how basic desktop computing needs are currently being met and how they should be met, frustration associated with only a small percentage of applicants receiving awards, and possible confusion with other grants.

There was more discussion regarding the perceptions of the University community with respect to these funds.  Dr. Hogue said he did not want the program to have a negative impact.  He requested that the members forward their ideas to him and volunteer for the subcommittee.

III.       Review of USC IT Strategic Plan, SDI Recommendations:  Dr. Hogue distributed the IT portion of the SDI recommendations for review by the members.

IV.       Setting the Agenda for the Remainder of the Semester:  Several agenda items were proposed for discussion during subsequent meetings of the UITC.  They included the following: SACS report; more in-depth financial data; where SACS & SDI intersect; indirect costs; composition of IT resources on campus and where they are located; and the UITC Charter.

There were no other matters to come before the UITC, and Dr. Hogue declared the meeting adjourned.

University of South Carolina
University Information Technology Council (UITC)

February 25, 2002

    The University Information Technology Council met on Monday, Feburary 25, 2002, at 3 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

    Voting members were present were: Ms. Barbara Blaney; Ms. Kimberly Bone; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Ms. Mary MacDonald Cordray; Dr. Char Davis; Mr. Mike Dollar; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Mr. William Morris; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Dr. Philip S. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; Dr. Juan E. Vargas; and Dr. Philip D. Watson. Dr. Stephen Bajjaly and Dr. Ronald J. Prinz were absent. Ex-Officio members present were: Mr. Steve Adams; Ms. Alma Creighton; Ms. Lorie Edwards; Mr. Troy A. Travis. Dr. William F. Hogue; Dr. John N. Olsgaard and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt were also in attendance.

    Dr. Hogue presided, calling the meeting to order. He thanked everyone for attending and especially welcomed Dr. Olsgaard.

    The following meeting dates were proposed and accepted for the remainder of the semester: March 4, March 18, April 1, April 15, and April 29. Meetings between May and August would be determined at a later time.

    Dr. Hogue stated that the election of Chair and Vice Chair would be postponed until the UITC had a chance to review the proposed charter.

    I. Student Technology Funds: Dr. Olsgaard, Associate Provost and Interim Dean of Libraries and Instructional Services, provided a brief overview of the two categories of student technology funds.

         A. The Student Computer Fund was established in 1983 by a separate student fee for the purpose of financing student computer labs across the Columbia Campus. In 1989, it was decided that this fee, as well as a variety of student fees being levied, would be collapsed into student tuition. The administration then set an amount of $1.5 million to be the portion of tuition previously levied as fees for the Student Computer Fund. That amount of $1.5 million has not changed since 1989 and is currently 1.038 percent of the total tuition collected. It is drawn as $750,000 per semester with nothing applied from summer sessions.

    The disposition of these funds was determined by a weighted table of criteria until the early 1990s when Provost Moeser decided that distribution would be to each college based on the student FTE of its previous fall enrollment. There was a small exception of $50,000 which was divided between the Library ($30,000), Honors College ($10,000), and University 101 ($10,000).

    The funds were, and currently still are, distributed by Business and Finance in equal installments twice per year in the same manner Provost Moeser determined. The Deans are encouraged to spend this money in the spirit in which it was intended, but they are not required to report on the actual expenditures.

         B. The Student Technology Fund was established in 1993 by a student fee of $50/semester ($100/year) levied to full-time students on the Columbia Campus. It was originally channeled through the Division of Libraries and Instructional Support in two phases.

    During the initial phase, the administration divided the fund into three equal parts to address different technological needs. The first one-third was used to fund such infrastructure needs as wiring the dorms and installing switches and routers. The second one-third was used to upgrade the infrastructure of the campus-wide network. The balance was used to replace desktop computers for academic and administrative faculty and staff, the disposition of which was based on the FTE of faculty and staff in each unit. Over a three year period, the combination of these funds would be one-half the total cost of new computers. If units matched the funds, it would finance new computers within the “three year” industry standard for replacement.

    When the wiring of the dorms was completed, the second phase began. The Student Technology Fund was halved and allocated in equal parts to the campus-wide network and to the replacement of desktop computers in the same fashion as listed above.

    In FY 2000/’01, the administration determined that the technological needs of the University required another change in the disposition. The one-half of the fund previously earmarked for faculty and staff computer replacement was redirected to the Office of Information Technology while the remaining one-half did not change.

    In response to questions, the UITC was told that in the current year, the student technology fund was approximately $1.8 million. Dr. Hogue said he requested that the fee be doubled starting in fall, 2002. The UITC would help to determine how the funds would best serve the University. It was noted that Computer Services had been required to report to the Provost’s Office on the expenditures of the portion used for infrastructure of the campus-wide network, and that it continued to do so.

    II. Budget of Computer Services: Ms. Edwards, Director of Computer Services, outlined the expenditures of the student technology funds.

    For 2002, the Technology Fee projected expenditure was $1.76 million. Of that total, $1.6 million would be expended as annual recurring costs in the following manner: $110,000 for Blackboard; $240,000 for Direct Support to students/public labs; $102,000 for Hardware Leases (public labs, TCL); $268,000 for Internet Access; $165,000 for McAfee Virus Software; $230,000 for Microsoft Campus Agreement; $25,000 for Misc. Software Maintenance (DARS, Alertpage, Web Search engine, Rexxware, etc.); $160,000 for Novell Inc.; and $300,000 for Office of Information Technology. The total non-recurring was $160,000 of which $100,000 would address Infrastructure Enhancements and $60,000 would address VIP Enhancements.

    Ms. Edwards then presented a summary of the $9,882,471 appropriated funds budget of Computer Services which included fringe benefits. She noted that for the current year, Computer Services had also received $528,815 from a one-time carry forward.
   
    The expenses were divided in the following types: 77 percent for personnel and fringe benefits; two percent for equipment; seven percent for rents and other fixed charges; less than one percent for supplies; nine percent for data processing supplies and services, four percent for services; and one percent for training and professional development. The budget by functional area was: 26 percent for application development, database administration, and Internet services; 15 percent for telephone and network infrastructure; 15 percent for operations; 15 percent for systems; 14 percent for academic services and IT training; five percent for desktop and server support; and nine percent for management, administration, and IT planning.

    There are approximately 161 personnel currently employed in Computer Services although the FTE was 200. The FTE had varied over the past nine years from 180 to 210.

    Ms. Edwards explained how Computer Services had managed to address growing expenses while facing static appropriations. In the late 1980s, Computer Services had profited from long distance fees charged to the University community. The then Vice Provost for Computer Services established a fund for those monies. By 1989, the fund held $11 million, but it was subsequently debited to pay for necessary, but recurring, expenses. Consequently, that fund had reached a $325,000 deficit by last year.

    It was noted that only state appropriated funds had been reviewed, and the UITC requested an expenditure/commitment summary of all sources of funding in Computer Services as well as the University-wide telecommunications’ budget.

    III. Budget of Distance Education and Instructional Support (DEIS): Steve Adams, Manager of Visual Media, DEIS, stated that the purpose of DEIS was to “serve University faculty and administration in the development and delivery of instructional media and to support academic units with statewide missions by delivering courses and providing student services to distance learners who cannot come to campus.”

    While all courses delivered with the assistance of technology to distant students involve more than one delivery method, faculty use the following delivery systems for primary delivery of content: digital satellite (50%), videocassette (32%) , print (14 %), and the web (4%).

    Mr. Adams listed the specific 12 graduate degree programs offered at a distance which included Masters programs in Business, Education, Engineering, Library and Information Science, Nursing, Public Health, and Social Work. The specific enrollment in each program was provided, and it totaled 10,155 annually.

    DEIS assists distance students with library services, registration, fee payment, exam proctoring, and course material distribution, and it assists faculty in copyright clearance, course packet compilation, and presentation.

    Course delivery involves an infrastructure of eight studio classrooms, a production studio, and a master control facility as well as broadcast and field engineers at 30 sites statewide.

    DEIS offers classroom support and the Advanced Instructional Media Lab for faculty. Media activity in 2000-'01 included 350 video productions, five national teleconferences, 728 still and digital photograph projects, and satellite programming and technical services for the National Advocacy Center. DEIS also maintains the campus cable system for video transmission. Mr. Adams outlined the $3,552,833 appropriated budget of DEIS, saying 80.2 percent was personnel costs, 5.7 percent was supplies, 3.6 percent was printing and postage, 3.2 percent was equipment, 2.9 percent was telephone and field support, 1.7 percent was data processing, and 2.7 percent was miscellaneous.

    It was noted that only state appropriated funds had been reviewed.

    IV. SACS Report: Barbara Blaney, University Registrar, distributed a copy of the recommendations developed by the SACS Writing and Oversight Team. There was not sufficient time for Ms. Blaney to make her presentation; therefore, the SACS Report was postponed to the subsequent meeting of the UITC.

    V. Discussion of UITC Charter and Leadership: Dr. Hogue proposed the following draft Charter for the UITC:
The University Information Technology Council (UITC) is a broadly representative body including faculty, staff, and students from the University of South Carolina System. The UITC will provide advice and counsel regarding University information technology strategies to the Office of Information Technology (OIT), and through OIT to the Office of the Provost and the Office of the President. Among the areas of UITC deliberation are:

• prioritization of projects and resource allocations;
• discussion, formulation, and review of strategic plans;
• performance benchmarks and measures;
• budget reviews;
• identification of opportunities for IT growth and focus
• communication strategies to inform and engage the community; and
• discussion, formulation, and review of IT policies.

The most important principal guiding UITC activities is to ensure that IT activities and initiatives are closely aligned with the highest academic and business priorities of the University.

The Council was asked to review the draft charter for discussion at its subsequent meeting.

There were no other matters to come before the UITC, and Dr. Hogue declared the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

University of South Carolina
University Information Technology Council (UITC)

February 18, 2002

    The University Information Technology Council held its initial meeting on Monday, February 18, 2002, at 3 p.m. in Room 107-C of the Osborne Administration Building.

    Voting members were present were: Dr. Stephen Bajjaly; Ms. Barbara Blaney; Ms. Kimberly Bone; Dr. Herbert F. Brown, III; Ms. Mary MacDonald Cordray; Dr. Char Davis; Mr. Mike Dollar; Mr. Steven D. Hinckley; Ms. Jane M. Jameson; Dr. William J. Kettinger; Dr. Douglas B. Meade; Mr. William Morris; Dr. Philip D. Moore; Mr. David Mullaney; Dr. Dwayne E. Porter; and Dr. Philip D. Watson. Dr. Philip S. Moore; Dr. Ronald J. Prinz; and Dr. Juan E. Vargas were absent. Ex-Officio members present were: Mr. Steve Adams; Ms. Alma Creighton; Ms. Lorie Edwards; and Mr. Troy A. Travis. Dr. William F. Hogue and Ms. Tammy P. Hyatt were also in attendance.

    Dr. Hogue presided and called the meeting to order. He thanked everyone present for his/her willingness to serve the University through membership on the UITC. Those present were asked to introduce themselves.

    I. Overview and Discussion of USC IT Issues: Dr. Hogue stated that this was a pivotal time in the history of the University. The UITC would play a vital role in determining the IT course of the institution. The council would review architectural, policy, resource, and allocation decisions. Council membership required serious intent and a high degree of commitment, but hopefully, it would also be fun and informative.

Dr. Hogue stated that the Council could help determine USC’s role in driving statewide policies. He provided the presentation he had given to the Southern Growth Policies Board in January, saying that the State of South Carolina invests approximately $500 million in the three Research Universities. But, the institutions receive twice that amount from other sources of funding. That produces a $1 billion return on the State’s $500 million investment.

    Between 65,000 and 75,000 people come to the three research universities, everyday. Therefore, these institutions become dense populations of intellectual capital. They are content engines and distribution centers of information.

    Dr. Hogue stated that the Council would have a role in determining if budget allocations are being spent as widely as possible. He then discussed the presentation he had given to the Strategic Directions and Initiatives (SDI) Committee and explained the recommendations of SDI with respect to IT.

    The five major IT goals are: 1) telecommunications, including voice, video, and data, which undergirds everything else; 2) tools; 3) instructional research computing environment; 4) Legacy Systems, which includes Human Resources/Financials/Payroll and student systems; and 5) money. Dr. Hogue added that the UITC will help define the “dotted line” oversight which the CIO will have with the distributed units.

    II. Discussion of charter, organization, and logistics for UITC: Dr. Hogue said he would draft a one paragraph charter for the UITC and distribute it to the members at their subsequent meeting. He explained that he did not want to Chair the UITC, but that the Office of Information Technology would assist with administrative support, scheduling of meetings, and distribution of information. The Council should select its own leadership, and it was proposed to have a Chair and a Vice Chair and that specific committees be formed from UITC membership and other representatives of the University community. The following committees were suggested: Policy, Instructional Computing, Research Computing, Administrative Computing, and Network Strategies. There was no opposition to future meetings being held on Mondays at 3 p.m.

    III. Development of an Agenda for the Meeting of February 25th: The agenda for the subsequent meeting was discussed. It was anticipated a Chair and a Vice Chair could be elected, the Council could determine its committee structure, and the direction for committee work could begin.

Discussion ensued related to the philosophy of the Council with respect to existing University committees, identifying IT resources, an explanation of the student technology fees, the organizational structure of IT resources, the budget of Computer Services and Distance Education and Instructional Support, as well as the SACS recommendations.

It was agreed that the Council would receive reports regarding several of these issues during its meeting on February 25.

There were no other matters to come before the UITC, and Dr. Hogue declared the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.