Eastern Oregon University

Tech-Fee Committee Meeting

November 9, 2006

Members Present:   Charles Martin, Steffany Long, Gaby Ochoa, Carolyn Bloyed, Linda Fratztke, Janet Hume-Schwarz, Anna Cavinato, Brian Sather

Resource Members Present:  Anna Maria Dill, Helen Moore

Guest:  Steve Clements

Minutes from the October 26, 2006 meeting were approved as submitted.

The nursing program submitted a request to move a the location of a $1500.00 printer purchased for the Hunt Enhanced Learning and Teleconferencing Project that was funded in 2005-06 from a location accessible to students to one not accessible to students.   Steve Clements explained that the function of the printer would not change, just the location.  The printer would still be used exclusively to print results for the students from their sessions in the SIMS lab.  Since moving the printer meant that it no longer needed to be networked, Helen suggested using a less expensive non-networkable laser printer that we already have, which would free up the more expensive printer for to use with one of this year’s proposals.  Committee approved this solution.

Steve Clements, IT Lead Equipment Systems Specialist, began discussion of the viability of each of this year’s proposals.   He noted that, even though coordination with the IT Department is required before a proposal is submitted to the Tech Fee committee, some of this year’s proposals did not or did no more than ask for prices.  Steve also presented some questions and comments for the committee to think about, including:

• What is policy on use of Tech Fee equipment?  Can only students use it, or can faculty use it as long as it “benefits” students?
• Should committee members who submit proposals recluse themselves from actually voting on their own proposal.
• Enrollment at Eastern is falling.  Should we continue to add new technology or just update and upgrade what we have?
• Eastern does not have the IT Staff to continue supporting and maintaining an ever increasing amount of technology.

Individual proposals were briefly discussed as follows:

• Business Testing-Simulation Lab.  Zabel Hall 136 is not large enough for 30 computers.  It is possible that there could be room for 26, but not comfortably.  Zabel Hall does not have the network capability to put 30 additional computers online.  Upgrades to allow this would cost at least $2500.00 and Tech Fee does not pay for wiring.   Steve recommends that the committee wait to fund this proposal until a room could be found on campus that would house this room effectively, rather than try to piecemeal something together.  Janet noted that she had attempted to find alternative space for the lab, but had not been successful.   Helen suggested that the entities represented by the Tech Fee committee together might be more effective in identifying space for the lab than Janet working on her own.   Helen also noted that the IT Department is in the process of gathering information of when and how many students use the Ackerman Lab.  She stressed that until that data is compiled and evaluated, the lab should not be changed from a general purpose lab.  No recommendation was made at this time.
•  EOU Region Center.  Steve is concerned that the computers for this proposal are old ones obtained when the Pierce and Learning Center Labs were upgraded.  They are 5 years old and out of warranty.  Long term maintenance could be a problem, especially considering that these computers will be placed off campus.  He was also concerned about notebook security.  Why notebooks needed if desktops are provided.  How much access to the new equipment will students have?  Why are carts needed for the projectors - why wouldn’t good quality carrying cases be more appropriate?   Travel expenses for set-up of the equipment should be investigated.  Amounts listed on proposal may not be accurate.  No recommendation was made at this time.
• Chemistry and Biochemistry (spectrophotometers).  This proposal was discussed and recommended for funding as submitted.  $3,333.92
• Low RPM Drill Press.  There was discussion regarding need for this piece of equipment, since the department already has one.  Charles has experience with the High RPM drill press currently in use and stressed that using it on metal creates a safety hazard.    This proposal was recommended for funding as submitted.  $1,200.00.
• Human Performance Analysis System.   Steve had several questions and comments on this proposal including:
• This proposal had no coordination with the IT Department before it was submitted. 
• Specific software application was not listed on the proposal. There are eight computers in the anatomy lab, but only two licenses are requested which means the application cannot be installed on more than two computers.   What about the annual $805.00 maintenance fee for the software?
• No hardware specifications were listed in the proposal. Site information indicates the lab systems would be adequate but this may not be the case, particularly with video editing and processing. None of the computers in the labs have firewire connections so additional cards would have to be installed and were not included in the proposal.  There are no computers in ZH 262 lobby area.  Where will they come from? 
• Could cameras in AV, previously purchased with Tech Fee dollars, be used instead of the camera requested?
• Why is an underwater camera needed?
• Will instructors will be using the application more than students. Is there a side interest here in having equipment and software available for research? 

           No recommendation was made at this time.

• Textbook Recording Equipment for Disability Services.  This proposal was discussed and recommended for funding as submitted.  $6,050.99.

The next Tech Fee Committee meeting is scheduled for 7:00am, Thursday November 16th at 7:00am in the Library Conference Room (Lib 114).

Minutes submitted by Helen Moore