Greg Seibert stated that the Remote Access Taskforce was constituted and charged by the committee to set policy and procedures for accessing the new dial up lines. 136 lines have been recently brought up that support full digital dial up with another 46 lines to be added this semester. There is a full PPP dial up bank now available and open for all faculty and contract administrative staff. The UCT previously asked the taskforce for an endorsement of a policy for access. Greg referred to the Remote Access Task Force Update, a handout that was distributed at the beginning of the meeting. Previously the council voted and endorsed the idea of remote access for all faculty and staff at the university and with the 184 lines there should be no problem. Access for student groups have been discussed and there is a very strong feeling that dial-in access is critical for graduate students with appointments. After looking at the ratios and numbers for the potential balance between the number of people who have appointments versus the number of non contract staff, the task force is proposing through the document that we open this up to all faculty, all contract administrative staff and all graduate students with appointments including graduate assistants, teaching assistants and research fellows. The non-contract administrative staff would have access via an approval form that could be obtained from the chair or department head. It was suggested that this be open to faculty, all non-contract staff, all staff and all graduate students with appointments. Greg stated this is still an unadvertised service and that there are already 28-30 people dialing in. Even though there are more lines, the population is large so some mechanism needs to be in place. The proposed policy would prevent the group from getting so large that it would become oversubscribed and useless to people. If access for the non contract staff a little bit limited, not eliminating anyone, but asking for a signature that would put the eligible group manageable and not swamp the 184 lines. Ilee expressed that he did not want to separate the administrative staff into definable have and have-nots. He is going to work on getting the money and that is in the endorsement that we are going to encourage the university to come up with the money or identify the funding so that all staff can have unrestricted access.

The issue of access for undergraduate and postgraduate students is not being examined. We have examined the issue of going to an ISP and also funding it. We are trying to identify funding to do it ourselves. The taskforce has come to the conclusion that it is necessary to survey the student population to find out what the real demand might be. We will be working with Undergraduate Student Senate to put together a survey of questions that are already being posed to the group and we will execute and analyze that survey before the end of the semester and create a recommendation and find out how many people are out there and put together a funding or budget requirement and come back to the group with the findings.

Rosemary Dumont stated that undergraduate courses are being developed on the web and that it is going to be the issue because many students don’t even know about this. Greg stated that the survey asks if they have a computer or if they intend to get a computer. The survey does not ask if you know how to use it. We are saying that if they have a computer hopefully the faculty will encourage its use. We are assuming that if they have a computer or have plans to get one they are going to dial in.

Rosemary Dumont questioned the sound capability in the labs because many web sites will have sound. Terry Kuhn stated that their lab had sound via speakers and not headphones, which is not a good idea. Paul Farrell stated that sound is an issue. He stated that Ohio University provides access for students but there is a per hour charge. Greg Seibert stated that they are looking into different options such as outsourcing completely to an ISP and then have the clients absorb the entire cost, which is between $10 and $22 per month. Another option is to completely do it all internally which is probably cheaper and more effective. The problem with that is we would not support a long distance access so if you are in a long distance area you are going to have to pick up the long distance call. This is the major drawback to us doing it ourselves. A hybrid approach that the taskforce is looking for is to contract with an ISP

An estimated log-in time is one of the items that the survey will address and in addition to what resources are out there and how long the students are likely to use them. Greg stated that the larger ISP's are willing to negotiate a fairly aggressive rate but we have to guarantee 10,000 accounts are going to pay. If they don’t get them the university has to pay the difference. The survey will also show if there is enough demand to sign one of these agreements. Terry Kuhn stated the students do not realize the instructional potential and that we cannot stop and not do it because we don’t know what the growth rate will be. Terry stated that as an educator, he feels we should be providing as close to state of the art that we can and that is part of why they pay tuition.

There was discussion of long distance charges, Greg stated that there has been discussion about joining with Akron, Youngstown and Cleveland and form a consortium. This has been talked about but has never gone anywhere.

James Boyd stated that direct access from the dorms identifies the users most likely as our students, if off campus, and we are not charging, any household that has an internet connection through the University does not limit it to just the student, it is the whole household’s access. If we are not charging for this there is no way make sure it is used for what it is intended. Another problem he has with an ISP service from the University to the household is that a child may get into something that is undesirable and the parent finds out: who gets blamed? We should not have to deal with this. Greg Seibert stated that whoever has the association with the University and allows other people to use it assumes the problem.

Greg stated that this is the update and we will be kept posted on the debate of the undergraduate access. The results of the completed survey with the results will be brought back to the council. If the council endorses what is being proposed today, advertising will begin. There are diskettes available at the help desk and the web page will be open for downloading.

Johnnie Baker questioned why we have an excess of 50,000 active e-mail accounts. He stated that this is more than double the student population and asked if they were all still affiliated with the university. Christine Shih stated that the 50,000 includes everyone that has accounts including all freshmen that enrolled and then did not return the next semester. The current policy is that undergraduate graduates have six months access to their accounts after graduation. Then a procedure is followed that allows all accounts to be looked at and purged six months after graduation.

Greg Seibert asked for approval to provide unrestricted full visual PPP access to all faculty, contract administrative staff, graduate students with appointments including graduate assistants, teaching assistants and all research fellows and taking all non contract administrative staff and asking them to get approval from the department head or chair for access. Greg stated that this was his request because he was concerned that if this was completely opened up it would swamp the service. Greg also stated that Ilee is uncomfortable with the have and have nots and will try to come up with the money. An approval form has been created, but may never come to be used.

Paul Farrell made a motion to accept this endorsement, it was voted on and approved.

Terry Kuhn asked if the feeling was strong for the Systems Manager of Residence Services. Terry stated that he felt this could be provided for by the appointment process rather than by a charter change.

Pam Mitchell stated that if it was by appointment there is no guarantee that they will be here. It was agreed that this was the downside. Terry asked if residence hall development is so consequential to technology influence on this campus that we feel this position should always be here or do we trust the vice president of that area to see that those areas of importance are represented.

Greg Seibert stated that if we go by appointment we feel the representation is there and by the title of his job he is up to date on they are doing and is comfortable bringing in the information that is required.

Ray Craig stated he felt that standing committees are being formed around administrative positions when they should be formed around systems. Other members of the council agreed.