1. Chabot Website
2. Other
Attendees:
Jim Baum (chair), Tom Clark (Dean of
Applied Tech. & Business), Catherine Powell (SOTA), Yvonne
Wu Craig (Grants/Classified Senate), Kurt Shadbolt (Auto),
Norman Buchwald (Library), Abdullah Yahya (Webmaster), Lisa
Ulibarri (CWS),
Danielle Maze (Language Arts), Kathy Kelley (Social Science/
Academic Senate Pres.), Tim Dave (Math/Science), Cedric
Pounds (DIGM), Isabel Seligo, Mark Schaeffer (SOTA), Arlene
DeLeon (SOTA), Ashley Long (Applied Tech.), Yulian Ligioso
(VP Administrative Services),
George Railey (VP AS), Howard Irvin (VP SS), Begona Cirera
Perez (PE/Health), Desmond Chun (Math/Science/Computer
Science), Chasity Whiteside (Learning Connection), Caren
Parrish (Language Arts), Ramona Silver (Lang. Arts, SOTA,
COOL Chair), Anne Brichacek (CAS), Jay Mumford (Applied Tech
& Business), Kathleen Allen (DSPS), Lani Wilson
(Counseling), Tiana Velasquez Munoz (Financial Aid), Wanda
Wong (Business).
Items:
1.
Jim Baum (chair): Approval of
Minutes from the
previous meeting, including the shared governance document.
2.
Wi-Fi – the faculty request
an update on the status of Wi-Fi on-campus as discussed in
last year’s Tech meetings.
a.
Jim will follow up on Wi-Fi
with Computer Support or ITS.
b.
Mark Schaeffer stated that
the committee last year discussed the need for campus-wide
Wi-Fi.
c.
Wifi map and update was
requested, including by Scott Hildreth, in Sp 2010.
d.
Jay Mumford inquired about
this issue on behalf of his students.
3.
Telephones – Des reported
that there are issues with the phone system in 3900. They
can call in, but cannot call out. They have reported this
issue and it has not been addressed.
a.
Jim will follow up on the
status of support tickets.
4.
Kathleen Allen inquired as to
what kinds of technology needs can be take care of without
district assistance.
a.
Jim stated that some policies
are stated on the link that was sent out with Tech Polices
from CLPCCD. He noted that some policies are marked as
drafts, but have been such for a number of years.
b.
Tom will discuss with Yulian
to follow up regarding help ticket status and feedback about
support needs.
5.
Kathy Kelly brought up that
in the last Academic Senate meeting, District and a Sungard
representative presented the waitlist function in Banner.
a.
The Sungard representative
discussed the possibilities of Banner and noted that there
are many features that have been purchased but not yet
implemented.
b.
Kathy inquired as to how we
can go about finding out the features that are available,
and perhaps what other colleges are using.
c.
The waitlist feature will
provide students a more effective way to add courses that
are already full. ITS is working on this tool and in the
next few months will provide a timeline.
d.
Kathy asked Tech Committee
members to provide input on what they would like to see with
this tool.
e.
Jim will reach out to Sungard/
ITS to see if we can get information/ overview on the
possibilities of Banner.
6. Yulian
Ligioso
: It might be helpful for the Technology Committee to
invite Jeanine/ ITS to present the Technology Master Plan
for the district in an effort to overlay that with the
College Technology Master Plan.
a.
This could be a way to
recognize and approach differences. It could give us an opportunity to start a dialogue
to address if there are campus needs that haven’t been
addressed in the overall district Technology Master Plan.
7.
Des Chun brought up that
faculty and staff could assist with technology needs on
campus and help to better address the immediate needs of the
campus through a volunteer basis.
a.
Tom stated that this is an
ongoing idea of restricted-access support through
faculty/staff volunteers, and the Tech Committee will
continue to address this.
b.
Tim Dave noted that a similar
structure of volunteers is used for emergency response on
campus; the same could be applied to local technology needs.
c.
Mark noted that this is an
ongoing policy issue that he also tackled as former Tech
Committee Chair, with no result due to the inability to
change the policy. College Council, who were in agreement
with this need.
d.
Jim noted that we
should address this need with those that made the related
policies.
e.
Kathy suggested that the
Academic Senate take up this issue with the policy makers,
as the faculty should be allowed input on these decisions
and policies. She suggested that the Tech Committee bring
this issue to the Academic Senate.
8.
Lani Wilson noted that the
institution needs an Online Counseling capability. The
college is way behind in the services it provides to serve
the students of our successful online course program. She
was told that the college needs to provide the funding,
which attributes to the college begin behind in the services
it is required to offer online to coincide with the online
program.
9.
The College Website: Tom
presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding the recent
issue involving the Chabot Website (version 3.0).
a.
Tom apologized for the
confusion surrounding the recent website changes.
b.
A week ago, the new college
web design was announced and launched.
c.
Tom showed the website
announcement and design explanation.
d.
Tom thanked the faculty and
staff who were involved in the new website design team that
worked over the summer to review the website design
(including Scott Hildreth, who is currently on leave).
e.
Tom stated that he had to
“take the website down because the site was compromised and
failed to meet some state and safety guidelines.” This was
the reason for the site being abruptly taken down.
f.
Tom will update on website
policies as he has more information. Jeanine Methe is a resource about web, technology
policy.
g.
Tom showed a detailed report
of the website consultant’s (Interact (?) Communications
Plan) findings that show that a more student-focused website
was needed. The firm noted that the website was nicely
suited for those who are already part of the organization.
This demonstrated the focus on the needs for students.
h.
Jim noted that most of the
attendees agree that the changes were needed and
well-thought out, but they want clarification on why it was
only up for a short time. Tom responded that had he had
proper communication with the district and other entities,
the website probably would not have had to be pulled so
abruptly. In Shared Governance, communication is key and he
pledges to make a better effort to improve such
communication
i.
Cedric Pounds inquired as to
when the website will be put back online. Tom responded that
he does not yet have a timeline, but he will inquire about
it.
j.
Mark asked if Tom could
explain what was meant by “the site was compromised.” Tom
responded that he doesn’t yet have the details to fully
explain that. Mark inquired as to “who” could explain this.
Tom responded that there were many people involved in making
that determination, and he is not sure of how many were
involved directly, but he respects their decision. He was
informed from a combination of both district and college
parties.
k.
Lani asked if we could know
the specific “state and safety guidelines” they were
referring to in the violation. If the Technology Standards
are published, we should be able to know exactly which
guidelines were not fulfilled by the new web design. Tom
responded that he heard a few mentioned, including the
presence of a prominent link to Alert U. Jim noted that it
only takes a minute to fix such small items, so there must
be more to the situation. Those in attendance overwhelmingly agreed.
l.
Tom again apologized for
miscommunication. Jim responded that such obvious silence on
this issue indicate that it is not being handled
appropriately. Faculty should be made aware of the details
of issues directly impacting the college and their students.
m.
Begona Cirera stated that
there should be a list provided about the specific details
on the website that should be changed, especially given that
faculty and staff spent time on this new design to improve
the college community. Tom believes that such a list is
most-likely in development, as reviewing parties agreed that
the website was an overall improvement to serve the student
needs.
n.
Mark stated that it appears
that the lack of transparency is more of an issue than the
“problems” with the new website design. “Why don’t we know who the people are that made this
determination? Why don’t we know on what grounds they made
this determination?” Tom responded that it may involve personnel actions
and other official actions and therefore may take a while
before details can be made public.
o.
Kathy stated that the faculty
care about this issue and Academic Senate will handle this
inquiry. Tom noted that the faculty have made a positive
impact in the past, so with some active participation in
shared governance groups we could make a better college for
our students. He plead that faculty be persistent in their
efforts, yet not confrontational. Kathy stated that we gain
more through collaboration.
p.
Lani added that her concern
is that if communication was optimal in this situation, her
suspicion is that the website still would have been pulled
despite faculty support. Tom responded that he feels the
Chancellor is committed to listen to all good ideas, and as
ideas are shared we can change the perception that such
positive changes do not come.
10.
Tim brought up that
technology is a part of education as much now as table and
chairs. The larger issue is that technology support at
Chabot is not directly in response to the needs of the
users. He shared that he has experienced a negative approach
to technology needs and inquiries, much different from other
institutions. He doesn’t feel the support, but rather
direction of what he is allowed to do. Tim feels that the
faculty should be driving, and allowed to give input on, all
technology needs on campus. His program has suffered as a
result of this approach to technology support.
11.
Cedric stated that in the
brief time the new website was up, he had a chance to
explore the design and wanted to recognize the ease of use
and what a fine job the website team did. Those in
attendance responded with applause.
12.
Lani asked about a program
for texting students, as discussed at a previous Tech
Committee meeting. Abdullah updated that the committee had
interest in this function, and he did some research and
presented an option, but there was a lack of follow-through
on this project. Tom suggested that we look at this need in
conjunction with other technology projects, as we move to a
more mobile focus.
13.
Arlene DeLeon stated her hope
that Computer Support and District ITS will attend the next
Technology meeting, as they were noticeably absent at
today’s meeting. She’s concerned with the balance of
technology support needs and the security of the network,
which they could provide insight on. It would also be helpful for them to hear concerns
and provide their input. She asked that Jim share with them
the need for their representation at these meetings.
a.
Tim added that the same
questions, issues, and solutions have been addressed over
many years at the institution. He added that while he
recognizes the need to address security issues, they have
been shared many times.
14.
Jim stated that the faculty
are greatly dissatisfied with the answers that were provided
today and inquired with George as to who is in charge of the
college website. George responded that District ITS/ Jeanine
Methe is in charge of the website and all technology needs
for the campuses.
a.
Kathy added that the whole
idea of service, including IT, is that they should be
providing a “service” to the users. And it should be a
service to serve the primary mission of the college, which
centers on teaching. She concluded that is the approach we
should take on the campus.
b.
Jim concluded that the
faculty will take up this issue for the college.
15.
Tom again apologized for the
miscommunication and looks forward to faculty and staff
working together to serve the needs of the students, and
commended those in attendance for caring so much about the
college community.
