Select Page

ACAC MINUTES FEBRUARY 3, 2016

Attendance:
Susan Aronica, Deb Burhans (Secretary), Scott Clark, Larry Deni, Marianne Djuth, Dan Drew, Mark Gallimore, Matt Gleason, Bob Grabowski, Christy Hoffman, Pat Johnson, Jon Lopez, Leah MacVie, Sue Margulis, Martin X. Moleski, SJ, James Oigara, Mike Pastizzo, SJ, Tom Prince, Greg Rusch, Yvonne Widenor, Chuck Wigley (Chair).

Guest: Marco Benedetti

I. ITS Updates (Scott Clark, Marco Benedetti)

Scott introduced Marco Benedetti, who visited ACAC today to talk about the new copiers:

The Comdoc contract was to be up in about a year. The College went to Comdoc and asked if they could help us to become more efficient and to reduce the cost of copying. Also, the process was enhanced to allow for Follow-Me access. Machines have new features and are better than the old machines. The Job-build feature, useful for copying from a book, is not currently implemented – they are trying to restore this feature.

Marty pointed out that there is no point in discussing the problems since it is saving money, which is the paramount concern. Marco responded that this is a bit cynical. There is a process and they would like to help debug things since they are taking into consideration our concerns when possible.

They have tried to debug features with problems, but following the rollout and actual use of the copiers by faculty and staff there are many new features to debug. Marty – ITS disconnected the in-house printers with no apologies or even notifications in Loyola. Marty spoke with Grant and Matt, they were switched over to a new server, rendering them unusable. It is clear that there are serious problems with communication regarding the copier rollout: response time from ITS has been very long, faculty are extremely frustrated, the Help Desk seems unable to fix many things. ITS folks (Larry, Scott) apologize about what happened in Loyola Hall. Recognize that residents needed to know that their printers were going to be offline for about 24 hours, and no one told them.

Marco agrees it was unfortunate. Cites lack of proper communication. With regard to use, the focus in terms of cost savings is on the largest users of copying resources. Surprisingly this is not, apparently, faculty, but instead includes use for mass mailings – Admissions, Development, etc. and student use. They are also trying to work on paper purchasing. Unfortunately some printers do not have stapling and there have been errors in mapping old feature sets to new feature sets – new copiers in some cases lack features the old ones had. This is being remedied.

Chuck provided some suggestions about how to proceed in the future with things like this. For future planning, we definitely need a better way to keep in touch and better way to allow for feedback and decision-making. We need a way to let faculty know what is coming down the pike.

The administrators feel that accessibility to printing services is much greater – printers all around and in central locations, this is being met favorably by students. In terms of ID cards, many campuses require ID cards from all across campus. It will only be a short time before we are all required to have ID cards on our persons. Marco does not seem to be at all concerned about this; it is where things are headed.

Marco says they appreciate the input. He thinks most issues are fixable, maintains it was a very good move on part of college to extend the contract and to get the new machines.

II. Technology innovation updates (MacVie, Gallimore)

Leah: (1) Faculty Development has been raised at nearly every meeting around campus, and Academic Affairs has been listening. Peg McCarthy has tasked Leah to work with two Welfare Committee members to develop a survey that will be live in the next couple days. Please send a personal email to anyone in your network to please take this survey on Faculty Development needs.

A matter to consider for a future meeting is the issue of conversations that have to do with teaching and learning in terms of technology. Peg has suggested that we might want to create a Faculty Council to deal with those issues. There might also be an ACAC subcommittee to deal with these issues.

Leah (2): They have a CEEP student who is working on Google Apps for Education. Students have these apps and Leah said that some of the apps have been rolled out for some of the faulty. This week there is a survey running for students to try to gauge how they are using Google apps for Education. Their CEEP student is also offering to come and speak to students in our classes to talk about how to use Google Drive, Google Hangout, etc. to enable collaboration by students on projects. There are many other applications they could use in addition to these. If you want to have the student come meet, let her know.

Mark: He is running a series of faculty-focused Google Drive workshops – many times, including later in the day and online to help out adjuncts in particular. The workshops encourage faculty to investigate, learn about cloud storage, etc. Check out their sign-up sheet for workshops. Marty – what about space (i.e. storage space available on Google drive)? Mark – Google drive is a more recent thing, they are starting a pilot project tomorrow wherein faculty will be able to get Google Drive to talk to our Exchange accounts. Email Mark Gallimore if you don’t yet have a Google Apps for Google Education account he can fix that. It will allow you to share things with your classes, etc. and there will not be space limitations.

III. Consideration of Motion ACAC BYLAWS (copy appears in addendum at end of Minutes) (Chuck Wigley)

Chuck introduced a statement of bylaws for ACAC. He tried to summarize essentially what we have been doing since 1986.

Marty Moleski: I move that the By-Laws be accepted by ACAC
Sue Margulis: seconded

Discussion – general discussion about the By-Laws, minor comments. Marty notes that we don’t really follow Robert’s Rules of Order, is this an issue? Chuck notes that the Newly Revised (1970) version is rather different from the original. We concur that we will continue our current meeting procedures.

Move to close discussion: Bob Grabowski
Second: Yvonne Widenor
Carries unanimously

Move to vote: Chuck
Motion carries unanimously

IV. Further discussion of new printer practices & protocols (everyone)

NOTE: Handout “Printer Practices & Protocols” by Chuck Wigley appears in addendum (ADDENDUM PART 2) to these minutes following addendum item (ADDENDUM PART 1) called “ACADEMIC COMPUTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS.”

Sue Aronica: many issues with the new printers, causing major problems in the Biology Department. There is considerable anger. People are unable to get things done. Comdoc has been called and is only able to respond to hardware issues. They can’t help with software issues. Sue specifically requested that printers not be installed during a particular period of time and that is exactly when they were installed, when Colleen (administrative assistant) was not available. Over the years there have been many issues with Comdoc. At the A & S chairs meeting there was an outcry. All of the chairs are having many issues. Kathy Peter couldn’t even print to the printer right next to her desk as of the first week of copying.

No provision has been made for our research students – we have always printed journal articles, etc. for them to read, they shouldn’t pay for the copying. This issue was discussed and not specifically resolved.

Scott – ITS will test rebooting copiers every night to try to keep rebooting from happening during the day. The root of that problem is not understood – many copiers continually need rebooting. ITS will consult with Biology before trying it on their copiers – Biology can’t have that done before a Tuesday morning due to extensive copying needs done often at night.

Larry (ITS) is addressing this – says they will do their best.

Question: Why was the copier replacement done at the start of the semester when we had to hit the ground running? The original contract expired June 1. ITS did a lot of testing but they were not prepared for catching all the faculty uses. Clearly there are major problems for which they could not prepare.

Marty would like to propose spending $30,000 to get someone else to help ITS deal with this. Yesterday Alan had 58 tickets. Notes that ITS does not have enough staff to deal with this. Can we spend the money to make the new system work?

March meeting of ACAC: we will dedicate about 45 minutes to revisit copier problems and what will happen going forward. We need to know understand how to proceed as faculty: if faculty have problems, how to they communicate this information? How do they find out what will be done? Chuck: suggests something has to be done. For example, something like the NASA Monday Memo, information from ITS that can reach faculty, staff, etc. about what is going on. We need a more identifiable system of communication. We can discuss this at a future meeting.

Chuck thanked Dr. Aronica for stating (to use his exact words), “so eloquently” the nature of some of the printing problems and how the problems so adversely affect students and educational processes. Chuck thanked Marty for his especially meaningful contributions to the meeting, along with Marco, Larry, Scott, Leah, and Mark.  Chuck wound down the meeting down at 3:08.

Tom Prince (ITS): Communication – ways that it happens. How should it happen? The Dome (but many don’t read it) along with other means. Mass emails are important. Scott: if there is an issue contact the Help Desk. Mark G. – try to use The Dome, even if it is imperfect.

Scott – FAQ on printing could be added to the Wiki for printing and also a best practices list of things. Wiki.canisius.edu

Meeting adjourned 3:10pm.

ADDENDUM PART I
ACADEMIC COMPUTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS
GUIDELINES FOR COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION

CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
Jointly advisory to Vice President of Academic Affairs and to Vice President for Business and Finance, the committee is responsible for facilitating communication between faculty and various administrative units which support teaching and learning, including ITS, regarding technology on campus, academic computing resources and services, new technology innovations, changes, and recommendations for improvement.

MEMBERSHIP
Membership shall be based on the official college list of committees as maintained by the president of the college. Annually, individual departments shall be asked, following the final April meeting, to send a representative to join ACAC in Fall Semester.

RULES OF ORDER
Except as otherwise noted, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (1970 and newer versions of the rules) shall be followed. A quorum is defined as having been met when at least six individuals holding membership meet during one of the seven regular meetings where the six individuals are comprised, minimally, of three faculty members and three technology staff members.

VOTING PRIVILEGES
Recognizing its purely advisory function, all persons attending ACAC sessions are entitled to vote on motions requiring committee votes.

OFFICERS
CHAIR: The chair of ACAC shall be appointed by the outgoing chair and, to be eligible for serving as chair, shall hold full-time faculty status. Absent a call for a vote on the chair position, the chair will continue for an indefinite term. If a call is made for a vote on the chair position, the vote will be held at the first regular session following the session when the call was made.

The chair shall be responsible for calling meetings, establishing agenda items prior to meetings, assigning time limits to agenda items, enforcing time limits, giving advanced notice of agenda items and time limits, and seeing that ACAC web postings are proper and timely.

SECRETARY: The secretary shall be appointed by the chair.

MEETINGS
REGULAR MEETINGS (Frequency & Duration): Seven meetings will be held during the academic year. One meeting will occur in each of October, November, December, February and March. Two meetings will occur in April. These seven meetings constitute regular meetings. Except for the December and final April session, meetings will take place on the first Wednesday of each month from 2:00-3:00 and the final meeting for the year will be on the last Wednesday of April. The December meeting will take place from 2:00 to 4:00 on the first Wednesday of December.

SPECIAL SESSIONS: Special sessions may be called from time-to-time.

CHRISTMAS PARTY: An annual Christmas party will be held during the December meeting.

PUBLICATIONS
MINUTES: Minutes shall be recorded by the secretary. Minutes will reflect what was done but not necessarily what was said during meeting sessions, unless necessary, for example, in constructing formal documents. Minutes will be distributed through the official ACAC web site.

WEB SITE: A web site shall be maintained by the chair. Said site shall include
1) a current copy of this document,
2) a statement “About ACAC,”
3) a copy of meeting minutes with ancillary postings,
4) a copy of any official publication of ACAC, such as “Banana Time,” and
5) such other materials as deemed prudent by the chair of ACAC.

BANANA TIME NEWSLETTER: ACAC shall maintain and distribute an in-house publication, named “Banana Time,” that identifies, describes, and evaluates some particular aspect of technology or that presents one or more interesting facts about technology (e.g., of an historic nature).

ACAC AWARD FOR EXEMPLARY CONTRIBUTION
ACAC will annually award the “Academic Computing Advisory Committee Award for Exemplary Contribution to the Innovation of Technology at Canisius College.” An individual award, e.g., a cut glass trophy, shall be given to each awardee. Plaques and nameplates in honor of ACAC award recipients shall be posted near Office of the President.

Award Guidelines: Awardees shall have served at the college for a substantial period of time and shall have demonstrated service in the innovation of technology at Canisius College considerably greater than the contribution that is ordinarily required as part of job responsibilities. Nominations for the award shall be made to any member of the subcommittee, but nominees (retired or otherwise) may not be nominated by an individual from his or her own department.

ACAC Award Subcommittee: ACAC Award Subcommittee shall consist of the Chair of ACAC, previous awardees that elect to participate, and volunteers from the ACAC official committee membership list. The subcommittee shall conduct its business in accordance with this document. In any event, the committee shall meet at least twice a year outside of regular sessions.

EFFICACY
Annually, Chair of ACAC, Secretary of ACAC, and one additional member of ACAC shall assess the apparent successes and failures of ACAC in meeting its charge and the requirements of this document. A report will be made and submitted at the final session of the year for inclusion in the minutes. Said report shall then constitute the first agenda item for the next regular session.

INTERPRETATION
Nothing stated in this document shall serve to limit the ordinary and customary way that ACAC conducts its business as reflected in the first 25 years of its existence (1986-2011).

Approved by committee, February 3, 2016.
Note by Chair: Final approved version is now posted in ACAC blog under “About ACAC.”

ADDENDUM PART II

PRINTER PRACTICES & PROTOCOLS PROBLEMS
The following materials were received by ACAC Chair from some faculty and staff members. Where necessary, departmental and personal identifiers have been removed by Chair. None of the listed items came from Chair. On page 4 of this document, I have provided my summary of the first three pages.

PLUSES
1. Can print in color. Color is a nice option that we did not have before
2. May help reduce paper use when seeing the cost for some print jobs and very easy to scan documents.
3. Seems faster on longer print jobs that are multiple pages and stapled
4. Like the “add me” feature when sending a scanned email to self.
5. I can’t think of any positives except some convenience for students.

MINUSES
Note: some people that sent in feedback indicated that their list of minuses was not all inclusive but was at least a partial list.
:
1. Printers are incredibly slow
2. Swiping is a pain, ID cards are, generally, not handy. They will get lost it or otherwise not be available when needed. Some people will not want to wear it around their necks.
3. Makes a lot of extra work for department secretary
4. Is our usage being tracked? Unfairly impacts faculty with large classes who may need to print 50 or 60 copies of every exam, etc.
5. I found an item in my print queue that wasn’t mine. How did that happen?
6. Student workers: I understand that they can have additional printing money added to their account to facilitate their printing of departmental materials, but what stops them from using this for personal printing?
7. Building a job (for example, scanning pages to then be emailed as a single document) is not an option.
8. Apparently, students will make copies on machines where paper costs will be charged back to the departments stocking the equipment
9. One large minus is the notable lack of faculty input in the decision to implement this new system.
10. The new system is more complicated than it needs to be.
11. I have noticed that my department’s printer/copier needs to be rebooted quite often due to “technical difficulties”. This has happened several times per week so far. The printing feature works, but the “copying” feature does not (gets stuck on “Authorizing”), and rebooting the machine is necessary to fix it. Why?
12. The new system is considerably more complicated with little payoff. Every time I want to print something I must (a) enter my username and password, and then (b) swipe my ID card simply to print. The only thing that has changed is that it has become more complicated to print. I also do not recall any faculty consultation regarding the new procedure.
13. There was an issue with a job “disappearing”. One faculty member printed 2 jobs. Both appeared on the queue when ID card was swiped. After selecting “Print All”, only one job printed, and the other was gone. One of the perks of the system was supposed to be the ability to retrieve jobs anywhere on campus. If I had tried retrieving these jobs on the way to class, I would have been out-of-luck, as I would have had to return to my office to print the job that “disappeared.”
14. One faculty member noted that the files that he or she generally prints tend to come out “off-center” on the paper. This was not an issue in the past.
15. Can the departments be provided with the pricing for various options? Faculty have questions about how to print in the most cost effective way. For example, we assume that two-sided is cheaper, but we don’t know this for sure, since we have not been provided with the costs to the department.
16. In order to make a single copy, we need to push a button indicating “copy” several times.
17. The machine is slow to respond. If I need to make 20 copies, I push 2, then 0. There is a delay between making such a selection and seeing it on the screen. Compared to the old printers, this seems to be a downgrade.
18. It would seem to be a good idea to have a Comdoc person on campus to address issues as they arose until all of the kinks in the system are worked out. There was some presence in the first day or two, but there are still issues (such as that noted in the first bullet above).
19. Swipe card issues (where card will not work for two dept. members).
20. An error message that caused the copier to be unusable. Needed to shut down and restart, this fixed the problem, but caused the professor to go elsewhere to print.
21. The community printer was never filled with paper – notified the print shop 3 times on this issue. I filled 3 times paper via complaints that it was empty.
22. Work studies, grad assistant, and others who use a Mac had to call ITS to get printing set up to use a “shared account” and not be charged to their personal accounts when using the swipe reader. This was not made know to us at the start of the semester, I emailed the help desk to resolve.
23. Students will get sticker shock when they get charged for their copies.
24. I’m a little surprised that with the available technology, instead of gently moving people to paper free choices like submitting class papers on MSWord, pdf files and D2L electronic drop boxes, the administration unilaterally decided to spend a lot of money to make more paper copiers more available. That makes no sense to me. (It shouldn’t make sense to ACAC either).
25. The color options are expensive and largely unnecessary. We now have a department color copier that no chair was able to budget for. The print budgets, because of the far more expensive color copies, will get blown in days.
26. As far as department operation, how do we ask work study students to make copies for our classes? Don’t they have to use their swipe cards to make copies for us? Are work study students supposed to front us the money for our department copy charges?
27. This is a bad idea that also wasn’t well thought out.
CHAIR’S SUMMARY OF
PRINTER PRACTICES & PROTOCOLS PROBLEMS
In order to assist members of ACAC, I offer as Chair my own summary of the Printer Practices & Protocols Problems pages. I offer this summary because I have had more time than other members of ACAC to examine the items that were emailed to me. The numbers in the parentheses correspond to the item numbers on pages 1, 2, and 3.
PLUSES

I. Improved features (color 1, faster 3, some convenience issues 5, “add me” feature 4), and

II. Reduced costs (items 2).
MINUSES

I. Communication Issues
A. Nearly complete lack of faculty input (notable lack 9, none 12, lack of information 4, policy contrary to encouraging digital copies 24, bad not-well-though-out idea 27).
B. Insufficient administrative follow-up/Ongoing Failure to share information (insufficient sharing of information 18, failure to load paper-lack of responsiveness 21, “shared account” information not provided 22).

II. Physical Problems
A. Machine problems (slow 1, misqueued items 5, building jobs 7, rebooting required 11, jobs disappearing 13, misprints 14, command failures 16, needlessly slow 17, complete failure 20).
B. Card Use/Swiping problems (cards not handy 2, cards inoperative 19).
C. System difficulties (needlessly complicated 10, little payoff 12).
D. Increased punitive demands on secretaries (excessive 3).

III. Economic Issues
A. Pricing issues (abuse of charging mechanism by students 6, 8; insufficient sharing of information 15, unfair burden on heavy users 4, burden on students 23, color copies often needless always expensive 25, students fronting money for departments 26).
B. Increased time and physical demands on employees resulting from employee efforts to resolve item “II. Physical Problems” issues (see attendant-noted items).