Minutes: Academic Computing Advisory Council
Meeting of November 9, 1995
Next Meeting: Thursday, Nov. 30, 3:45pm, Forestry Conference room
Homework Assignment: Send email description of how your school/dept
is addressing its needs for computer support -
include what has worked and what has not.
Present: David Phillips (Chair), Peter Baker, Jim Campbell, Rick Fore,
John Hawley, John Lloyd, Kirk Martini, Worthy Martin, Jerry
McGann, Bill Pearson, Sally Reel, Bob Ribando, Tim Sigmon,
Martha Sites, Alice Howard
ACSP Proposals: the committee reviewed the process and procedures --
proposals are due on 11/15; copies of all will go out to committee for
review/evaluation; each proposal will be assigned 2 lead readers for
in-depth coverage (lead readers are encouraged to visit their
departments); committee members should vote "yes" on half of the
proposals and email their votes to Michael Kubovy by Nov. 28.
Preparatory discussion (for meeting with Peter Low, Polley McClure,
and Barbara Nolan): the committee reviewed David's memo to Peter
and Polley on "ACAC Initiatives" that stressed the commitee's offer
to participate and assist in projects and activities where information
technology is combined with the central instructional mission of the
University (e.g. CIP, TTI, etc); the committee was brought up-to-date
on the formation/population of the Information Technology expert group
for ITC; the UCIT/Ed Ayers' letter to the Senior Cabinet was reviewed,
and it was recommended that the ITC committees should take a proactive
role/stance; there was discussion about the ACAC's role as a
"representative" group with latitude in setting its agenda; further
discussion about departmental computing responsibilities led to some
comparisons about how different schools/departments are managing to
find/provide computer support personnel -- resulting in a homework
assignment for the committee (i.e. to describe how their school or
department is addressing its needs for computer support, and to
relate what has worked and what has not).
Meeting with Peter Low, Polley McClure, Barbara Nolan (responding to
David's memo referring to several joint initiative between the Provost
and ITC): Peter explained the roles of the new/old Vice Provosts;
Polley stated her view that the ACAC's role was to promote two-way
communication between the faculty and UCIT and ITC, and to consider
the "broad" issues (vs. the role of the more focused "expert groups");
there was considerable discussion about the role (past and present) of
the ACAC -- was it to represent faculty interests to the Provost? No,
from Peter's point-of-view the ACAC was to give ITC/Polley advice on
Information Technology matters from the academic perspective.
The committee expressed concern about the review processes and about
channels for faculty to provide input for several University-wide
projects:
*The Classroom Improvement projects. Peter stressed the University's
central ownership and management of classrooms, provided some
background to the current issues (i.e. a serious mismatch between
sizes, quantities, and needs), and stressed that faculty input should
flow to their Dean and then to the Provost. The role of the ITC
committees in this area is to provide advice/guidance to ITC/Polley in
how and where to use technology in classrooms.
*The Selection of the Next Set of TTI Fellows. Barbara Nolan
described the RFP process as being similar to last year's -- it would
flow from departments/Chairs/Schools/Deans with a more standardized
application format and budget section this year.
There was some general discussion about the University's budget and
resources being allocated more to the individual Schools than to the
Provost's office.
Discussion returned to the role and mission of the ACAC with some
general concensus that it could provide:
*Two-way communications with ITC -- a specific channel for academic
interests -- a way for faculty to describe the services they want
and to give advice about how ITC can use its resources to meet the
needs of faculty.
*A forum for sharing information and ideas between schools and
departments -- to promote good ideas and to reduce redundancy and
"re-invention of the wheel".
The committee again expressed the message that it is seeking ways to
be involved and to keep the channels of communication open -- as a
group and as individuals.
UVA HOME PAGE
ITC HOME PAGE
ITC COMMITTEES PAGE