Information Technology Committee (Technology Steering Committee)</ti= tle>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple style=3D'tab-interval:.5in'> <div class=3DSection1> <o:p> </o:p> Information Technology Committee (Technology Steering Committee)<o:p></o:p> Weekly Meeting Notes – December 3, 2008 <o:p> </o:p> Present: Vaughn Obern (Cinema), Pamela Atkinson (TLC),= Amy Sirott (Business/CAOT), Kathryn Beaufait&n= bsp; (AFT), Dorothy Fuhrmann (Library), Lisa Fitch (PR) , Anna Badalyn (Research),<sp= an style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Jorge Matta (DOIT), Ken Sherwood (Academic Senate), Don Hentschel (Math) <o:p> </o:p> Agenda<o:p></o:p> Jorge Mata attended the TSC meeting. Questions on = privacy issues for email<o:p></o:p> We want to have easy communication to adjunct faculty. Currently we can’t auto forward email to home. Adjunct faculty doesn’t open the campus email. Jorge said there are legal issues to forwarding the email. There could be confidential information being sent. E= mail policy can be reviewed. <o:p> </= o:p> How to tie LA= CC plans with LACCD plan. Jorge fe= lt that you need an educational master plan to tie to the IT plan. The master = plan will trigger the other plans. We can use the draft for the strategic master plan. The mission is for stud= ent success. The IT plan is tied to the master plan. Tech 3 is a guiding principle for = the state master plan. We will get the LACCD IT plan this summer. The district = goal is to grow 20% over five years, and improve e-portfolio. The plan looks at infrastructure. <o:p> </o:p> Standardizati= on <o:p></o:p> Standardization is needed; they can’t customize = needs for each department. Each lab now is a separate item. At LACC have over 50 = labs available. They want to poll the resources for the IA’s. There is a question how to replace this cycle and how to think strategically, for the entire campus. This committee reports to SGC; which will make recommendatio= ns. There is the recommendation that IA won’t be tied to individual departments= ; instead they will use a model of centralizing staff. <o:p> </o:p> Software Sepa= ration<o:p></o:p> There are questions about capabilities of the software= ; the policy says you must separate student information from student school work.= We need to look at needs for software licenses. Jorge has been using (HP) Blade technology. Classes for netwo= rking, online classes. It is a different model to not have all computers in one sp= ot. <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Student infor= mation system. When students login they want to request the students = verify their address, email address, add a field for cell phone. Jorge said this request should be through admissions and records. We need to update the emergency contact information. <o:p> </o:p> The priorities right now are for a student management system. We need to retain our students single identity will be for = staff and student. Each one has its own login id and password. Degree works is driving this process. They created a database from the student database. All future applications will use this. It is possible to link the student id to= a social security number but that information is only available for internal personnel. <o:p> </o:p> District makes choices on applications. <o:p></o:p> There was a question about the decision to use Omni up= date for our websites. The question is how free is each school in making the decision? There are limited numbers of people that can update using Omni Up= date. The objective was that the district wanted commonality between the colleges. There are two problems: the limited users because they have limited the num= ber of license, the expense of using it. Omni Update is not very user friendly = in our environment. </div> </body> </html>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Location: file:///C:/A538D238/December3,2008MeetingNotes120308.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Information Technology Committee (Technology Steering Committee)</ti= tle>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple style=3D'tab-interval:.5in'> <div class=3DSection1> <o:p> </o:p> Information Technology Committee (Technology Steering Committee)<o:p></o:p> Weekly Meeting Notes – December 3, 2008 <o:p> </o:p> Present: Vaughn Obern (Cinema), Pamela Atkinson (TLC),= Amy Sirott (Business/CAOT), Kathryn Beaufait&n= bsp; (AFT), Dorothy Fuhrmann (Library), Lisa Fitch (PR) , Anna Badalyn (Research),<sp= an style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Jorge Matta (DOIT), Ken Sherwood (Academic Senate), Don Hentschel (Math) <o:p> </o:p> Agenda<o:p></o:p> Jorge Mata attended the TSC meeting. Questions on = privacy issues for email<o:p></o:p> We want to have easy communication to adjunct faculty. Currently we can’t auto forward email to home. Adjunct faculty doesn’t open the campus email. Jorge said there are legal issues to forwarding the email. There could be confidential information being sent. E= mail policy can be reviewed. <o:p> </= o:p> How to tie LA= CC plans with LACCD plan. Jorge fe= lt that you need an educational master plan to tie to the IT plan. The master = plan will trigger the other plans. We can use the draft for the strategic master plan. The mission is for stud= ent success. The IT plan is tied to the master plan. Tech 3 is a guiding principle for = the state master plan. We will get the LACCD IT plan this summer. The district = goal is to grow 20% over five years, and improve e-portfolio. The plan looks at infrastructure. <o:p> </o:p> Standardizati= on <o:p></o:p> Standardization is needed; they can’t customize = needs for each department. Each lab now is a separate item. At LACC have over 50 = labs available. They want to poll the resources for the IA’s. There is a question how to replace this cycle and how to think strategically, for the entire campus. This committee reports to SGC; which will make recommendatio= ns. There is the recommendation that IA won’t be tied to individual departments= ; instead they will use a model of centralizing staff. <o:p> </o:p> Software Sepa= ration<o:p></o:p> There are questions about capabilities of the software= ; the policy says you must separate student information from student school work.= We need to look at needs for software licenses. Jorge has been using (HP) Blade technology. Classes for netwo= rking, online classes. It is a different model to not have all computers in one sp= ot. <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Student infor= mation system. When students login they want to request the students = verify their address, email address, add a field for cell phone. Jorge said this request should be through admissions and records. We need to update the emergency contact information. <o:p> </o:p> The priorities right now are for a student management system. We need to retain our students single identity will be for = staff and student. Each one has its own login id and password. Degree works is driving this process. They created a database from the student database. All future applications will use this. It is possible to link the student id to= a social security number but that information is only available for internal personnel. <o:p> </o:p> District makes choices on applications. <o:p></o:p> There was a question about the decision to use Omni up= date for our websites. The question is how free is each school in making the decision? There are limited numbers of people that can update using Omni Up= date. The objective was that the district wanted commonality between the colleges. There are two problems: the limited users because they have limited the num= ber of license, the expense of using it. Omni Update is not very user friendly = in our environment. </div> </body> </html>