|
|
Academic Senate
|
|
|
|
Academic Senate
|
|
2 May 2001
Attachment 4: Integrated Technologies Committee Report
|
Integrated Technologies Committee Cover Sheet Date __April 22, 2001______________ Report Number (For Senate Use Only) _______________ Name of Committee Submitting Report __Integrated Technologies Committee_______________________ Committee Status: (elected chartered, appointed chartered, ad hoc, etc.) ___Appointed Chartered_______ Names of Committee Members: C. Anderson T. Atwood, M. Brooks, D. Esterly, L. Falk, M. Graham, R. James, S. Leson, G. Mapley, G.McCloud, P. Mucci, V. Phillips, H. Pullman, J. Schramer, G. Stanek, C. Stevens, R. Ziobert, J. Zupanic Write a brief summary of the report the Committee is submitting to the Senate: The committee met to discuss the possible implications of the state auditors' task force recommendations on integrated technologies. Implementation of these recommendations could change the administrative decision- making structure, advisory committee structure, and strategic planning process. To encourage an appropriate high level of inclusion of the faculty and academic personnel in these structures and processes, the committee recommends passing the attached resolution. (See the full ITC report in Integrated Technologies Appendix I, below.) Do you anticipate making a formal motion relative to the report? __Yes __ If so, state the motion: The
Integrated Technologies Committee moves approval of the following resolution:
WHEREAS the use of computer
technologies by the academic side of the University now constitutes the
largest, most diverse, and most intense use of these resources, THE ACADEMIC SENATE RESOLVES THAT any University
planning or decision making related to computer technologies should include
major representation from the academic side of the University. The effect on
the academic community of any decisions should always be a prominent
consideration. If substantive changes in your committee recommendation are made from the floor, would the committee prefer that the matter be sent back to committee for further consideration? We would like to reserve the right to decide that at the time. Other relevant data: ______________________________________________________________
Signed, Jim Zupanic, Eng. Tech., Chair
|
REPORT TO THE SENATE
APRIL 20, 2001Two issues were discussed this year by the committee. The first was the likely impact of the State Auditors' Task Force on technology at the University. The level of effort and resources involved in this task force may lead to its recommendations being taken very seriously by both the administration and the community. Although the area of the task force's interest is primarily administrative operations, the items they address in the technology area could have a large and direct impact on the academic community.
These include but are not limited to major changes in technology administrative structure, planning processes, and advisory committees. With this in mind, the Integrated Technologies Senate Committee members concentrated their efforts this year on participating in the process set up by the State Auditors' team.
At this time, the recommendations of the administrative review task force are being finalized and are expected to be publicly announced in May. Integrated Technology Committee members as a group have had access to some of the many draft recommendations. Individual members of the committee were involved with other draft technology recommendations as a result of their primary job functions. We were also given the opportunity to comment on and suggest revisions to the draft recommendations. We took advantage of those opportunities and appreciate the cooperative response from the auditors' team. Some of the recommendations are confirmations of the directions YSU technology administrators previously suggested.
Without detailing or previewing the recommendations, which should be left to the final release by the Auditors' Task Force, the Integrated Technologies Committee decided to propose a resolution to the Senate. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a formal state auditors' task force has been involved in a major review of University operations. The governance of a university contains some complications not found in typical government agencies. The Academic Senate is one of those complications. We would like to make certain the Academic Senate will be considered a partner as the University turns the auditors' recommendations into action. The resolution we propose is offered in that spirit.
The second item discussed by the committee was the new YSU Web Site Manager and the Web Site Advisory Committee. Our committee felt that since the web is becoming such an important part of academic life, we should coordinate our efforts with those of the Web Site Manager and the Web Site Advisory Committee. Three members of our committee, V. Phillips, L. Falk, and S. Sanders, have extensive web site knowledge. V. Phillips took steps to investigate acting as a liaison between the Integrated Technologies Committee and the Web Site Advisory Committee. With the organizational move of the Web Site Manager position to Computing and Information Systems, D. Esterly announced that the membership of the Web Site Advisory Committee would be modified to include, at a minimum, one member from each college. It was suggested that some common membership with the Integrated Technologies Committee would also be beneficial.
Respectfully submitted by
Jim Zupanic, Eng. Tech.
Committee Chair
For further information, e-mail Bege Bowers.
