UITAC Home

Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes for June 17, 2002

A meeting of the University Information Technology Advisory Committee was called to order at 3:00 p.m. on June 17, 2002, in the 4th floor conference room of Cabell Library. Dr. David Sarrett, co-chair, presided. Members present were Dr. James Shultz, Ms. Veronica Shuford, Mr. John Ulmschneider, and Mr. Mark Willis. Dr. Timothy Broderick, Dr. Lynn Nelson, Ms. Fran Smith, Dr. Robert Mattauch, Mr. Carl Gattuso, and Dr. Phyllis Self were absent.

I. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 8, 2002
Minutes were approved as prepared.

II. DRAFT E-MAIL ACCOUNT SUSPENSION PROCEDURE
The committee members were asked to make sure they each had a copy of the Student Email Policy that was distributed by Dr. Self at the April 8 meeting.

A draft document entitled “Procedure for Revocation and/or Examination of VCU Computer and Network Access” was distributed to the committee for review.

Dr. Self and Mr. Willis have been receiving numerous requests to monitor email accounts and network use by students, faculty and staff. They felt a procedure was necessary to provide standards for them to go by and a process to follow regarding when and how to revoke an individual’s email account.

The draft procedures contained the following provisions: Requests for assistance regarding suspension or revocation must come from a high level administrator in the University (President, Vice Presidents, Deans, General Counsel, and VCU Police). The request should be directed to the Executive Director for Administrative Information Technology and/or the Vice Provost for Academic Technology or their designee when out of the office. The ISO (Information Security Officer) should be informed of the request as well. If there is any question that a crime has been committed, it will be also be reported to the VCU Police Department. Step 3 lays out the procedures that will be followed. It was suggested that The Patriot Act might provide some of the answers to these questions, and both documents should say the same thing.

A question was asked as to whether or not we really needed these procedures since the Computing Network Resources Use Policy and the Enforcement Procedures currently have sufficient provisions to cover these situations.

The general consensus of the committee was to not adopt additional policies or procedures in this area. Mr. Willis and Dr. Self will take another look at the Enforcement procedures and expand that to incorporate these items. If they still feel that a separate “Procedure” document is needed, they will advise the committee.

III. IT STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
Dr. Self, Mr. Willis, and Mr. Ulmschneider have had numerous discussions on how to kick off the Strategic Plan. The original decision was to hire an outside facilitator; however, during recent discussions, this approach has become less desirable because of the timeframe and expense of an outside consultant.

The information technology units plan to draft a Strategic Plan during the summer, present it to UITAC, and in the Fall begin submitting it to groups such as the Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, etc. for initial approval.

The committee was reminded that some higher education institutions have stopped doing strategic plans completely.

The question was asked if the Strategic Plan had a timeframe, and Mr. Willis replied that probably 5 years would be the maximum.

The decision was made to proceed with the framework and present it at the next meeting.

IV. UITAC ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT
A draft of the UITAC Annual Report for 2001-2002 was distributed to the committee. Dr. Mattauch, Dr. Sarrett, and Mr. Willis met recently and decided it would be a good idea to make a list of what the group has accomplished. This was done voluntarily – they were not asked to provide it.

The committee reviewed the document submitted by Dr. Mattauch and had a few questions and suggestions:
1. The Computer and Network Resources Use Policy and the Enforcement Procedures document were separate. The Enforcement Procedures document isn’t on the list – should it be?
2. Include the current committee membership.
3. It should be sent to the vice presidents.
4. Keep it to a single page.

Changes will be made and the co-chairs will send it out.

V. SUMMER MEETING SCHEDULE
The committee was asked about meeting during the summer months. The decision was made NOT to meet in July or August. Meetings will resume in September unless an emergency arises.

VI. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS FOR 2002-2004
September is the end of the initial 2-year period. Dr. Mattauch and Dr. Sarrett have agreed to stay on as co-chairs. In order to be more effective, the committee needs to increase its membership, possibly with a representative from each of the eleven schools and the major administrative units (Research, Advancement, Governmental Relations, Student Affairs, Finance & Administration and the units under it, etc.) There is a tremendous value to having a representative from each school on the committee so they can be made aware of all the policies. The deans will provide recommendations and the representatives will be selected by the vice presidents. Criteria the deans should use in making recommendations in priority order are:
a. Individual is available to attend
b. Favor faculty over administrators
c. Interest in the issues

It was suggested that the Faculty and Staff Senates should nominate a member also.

It was further suggested that meetings alternate between the two campuses to make it easier for members to attend. Also, the committee might want to consider distributing the annual report to prospective members so they can get a feel for what the committee is accomplishing.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:32 p.m.