Accessible Navigation. Go to: Navigation Main Content Footer
IT Senate

MINUTES


May 7, 2013

Members present: Matt Riley, Loey Knapp, Erika Noble, John Greer, Sandi Nelson, Jennifer Sauer, Art Held, Tony Jablonski, Mark Grimes, Roger Maclean, Aaron Heiner, Jesse Neidigh

Members excused: Judy Fredenberg, Manu Samuela, Mark Pershouse

Members absent: Eric Reimer, Sean Schilke, Allen Szalda-Petree

Ex-officio members and staff present: Adrian Irish, Ian Robbins, Ed Johnson, Gordy Pace

Call to order

Matt Riley called the meeting to order at 3:34

Minutes

John Greer moved that minutes from the April 9 meeting be approved. Tony Jablonski seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Communications

Matt Riley recommended that Loey Knapp continue on IT Senate as an ex-officio member to continue working on the IT strategic plan and assessment activities. Members agreed without objection.

Matt also recommended reviewing membership renewal protocol during the summer and bringing a recommendation to the first meeting next fall. He also suggested that the chair and chair-elect positions should be clarified.

Loey asked if IT Senate should be considered a governance group on par with Faculty Senate, Staff Senate and ASUM. Roger Maclean said he thought it should considering that IT impacts everyone. Ed Johnson said that there has not been enough of a voice in IT decisions, so that’s the impetus for IT Senate.

Matt said he thinks the Cabinet is looking at what comes out of IT Senate as a way to establish its importance. The IT strategic plan assessment report is a nice share for the cabinet and a way for them to see what’s happening. John Greer reminded the group that the he and others had spoken to the Cabinet and it was clear that the IT Senate was the governance structure for IT. Matt said that it’s clear that as a group, IT Senate needs to make solid contributions and that he needs to carve out space with the cabinet and ensure that we are that governance group that we think we are. He said we need to continue to make progress and report progress on the IT strategic plan and any other items that we come to consensus on.

Matt pointed out one other procedural item, that we need a chair-elect. He suggested doing that voting in September. There were no objections.

Unfinished business

IT Senate decision-making principles

Art Held, Judy Fredenberg and Gordy Pace had worked on two additional principles. Art had suggested amendments to the proposed language. His suggestions were:

  • All decisions should be based upon a collaborative process focused on finding solutions that best serve the interests of all interested parties.
  • All parties should approach the decision making process open to new ideas, willing to adapt to change, and ready to compromise when necessary for the overall good of the University.

After some discussion, Matt asked for a motion to approve the changes with some slight modifications to the wording on the first. Jesse Neidigh moved approval. Mark Grimes seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.

IT strategic plan assessment report

The assessment report was shared with the IT Senate the day of the meeting, so Matt recommended that there would have to be work that continued on past this meeting. We will need to move the document from draft format to final format within 30 days.

Loey said the report needs review from the IT Senate. The report goes to the cabinet and to Arlene-Walker Andrews as part of the official UM assessment and accreditation report.

Matt suggested that comments needed to be submitted by June 7. A follow-up will be sent after the meeting.

Jesse asked how Matt wanted comments, whether it was a list of comments in an email or an edited Word document. Art asked if there was a way to have a forum where people could see comments from others. Matt said we would take comments in whatever format they are submitted, but will try to provide a way for people do see what has already been done.

Professional development

Aaron Heiner from Intercollegiate Athletics talked about his job and technology needs and challenges facing Athletics and the facilities. He pointed out that technology support includes three things: student athletes, department employees and events. The Adams Center is a separate entity.

Aaron doesn’t do much for the student athletes. NCAA regulations say they are supposed to treat student athletes like other students, so if they have IT problems, they have to go to the services provided by other students. There is a lab that was donated.

He supports 60-70 employees and more than 100 computers. Has some students helping him. Generally it’s desktop support. Aaron’s philosophy for supporting coaches is that he doesn’t want them to go to the administration and say “we lost because of IT.” He does everything he can to make sure coaches have everything they need to do their jobs. A big thing is streaming video and video exchange and maintaining video-editing systems.

Deal with a lot of sporting events in the stadium or arena and other venues in the Adams Center.

Network bandwidth is a big issue because of the streaming video. The department also deals with ESPN, Root Sports and other media outlets that need internet connectivity and have high expectations for wireless availability.

John Greer asked about streaming solutions. Aaron explained that the Big Sky Conference owns the license for conference games and all non-conference games belong to UM, however Learfield Sports owns those rights.

New business

Formation of committees

Matt acknowledged that it is the duty of the IT Senate chairperson to assign committee chairs. The question is what ones do we need to get going. 

Jesse asked about the Banner priorities group. Loey pointed out that the current Banner priorities is run by Administration & Finance and includes John Thunstrom from IT, but it doesn’t reflect Academic Affairs’ interests or Student Affairs’ interests. The consultants who helped with IT strategic planning had recommended that that existing committee should be broadened to incorporate other interests. Matt said that in meeting with Faculty Senate, there is extreme interest in this.

Adrian pointed out that the existing Banner priorities group is not an official committee. He also pointed out that “Banner priorities” is not a very good name for the group because what this group would end up doing is substantially different that the purpose of the A&F group.

Ian Robbins suggested that the enterprise applications committee should move forward immediately. John Greer said that Banner priorities should be part of the enterprise applications as a branch of that committee. It is one of our enterprise systems and if we look at it differently from our other enterprise systems, then communication between those two groups wouldn’t be as good as it should be.

Matt suggested that Banner needs to be part of enterprise applications and asked if there was someone who could carry the flag for Banner at all times. Tony Jablonski suggested that someone from the Banner group should serve on the enterprise applications committee and vice versa. Art Held said that enterprise applications is strategic and Banner priorities are tactical, so Banner should be a subcommittee of enterprise applications so the agenda isn’t being driven by tactical considerations.

Matt summarized by recommending that Banner priorities would be part of enterprise applications and we would do outreach with the current Banner priorities group to see how that might fold into the enterprise applications group. There was no objection. 

Matt also pointed out that there was a lot of interest in research computing and that it might make sense to have Judy Fredenberg chair that committee. Faculty are looking to the VP of research office to be heavily involved in that.

Loey said we needed the communication and collaboration group to do assessment and the operational plan over the summer. Matt recommended that Roger Maclean lead that group. Roger agreed and there was no opposition.

The meeting adjourned at 4:53.

Minutes submitted by Gordy Pace