Information Technology Planning Board (ITPB)
April 3, 2007
Meeting Summary
www.itpb.ucla.edu

ITPB Attendees: Christine Borgman, Alfonso Cardenas, Jim Davis, Daniel Fabbri, Xue Hua, Bill Jepson, Kathy Komar, Sam Morabito, Alan Robinson, Kathy Atchison, Gary Strong, Charles Taylor, David Kaplan, Alan Robinson, Gary Strong,

Guests:  Adrienne Levine, Nick Reddingius, Terry Ryan, Ruth Sabean, Mike Schilling, Marsha Smith, Greg Spotts, Kent Wada, Don Worth, Carmela Cunningham, Kenneth C. Green.

Meeting Called to order at 3:00 pm.

Agenda Item 1: Meeting Notes

Action: Meeting Notes from February 22, 2007 were approved after brief discussion of the term “Muddle of Moodles.”  Bill Jepson pointed out it was his term, not that of the CCCs; it was agreed that the minutes were clear that the term was Jepson’s and not that of the CCC’s.

Agenda Item 2:  UCLA IT Analysis with Kenneth C. (Casey) Green of the Campus Computing Project

Dr. Green presented data comparing UCLA IT infrastructure, services, and funding models with nine peer universities.  Dr. Green and Jim Davis both clarified that the comparison between UCLA and the peer universities is somewhat skewed because IT at UCLA is provided and funded differently than at most universities.  While the attempt has been made during annual surveys to answer the questions as accurately as possible, there is much room for error.  UCLA does not participate in the EDUCAUSE core data survey on higher education computing because it is almost impossible to answer the questions accurately based on the way UCLA provides IT.

The presentation was a broad perspective across major universities for the ITPB to look further at the way UCLA provides IT.  Discussion around the comparative analysis will be helpful for the ITPB retreat which is slated for July 2007. The slides from Dr. Green’s presentation are available on the ITPB website.

Agenda Item 3:  TIF Update

Jim Davis updated the group, saying that a meeting on TIF with the Deans had taken place and that he will meet again with them on April 18.  Jim Davis, Scott Waugh, Steve Olsen, Sam Morabito, Alfonso Cardenas and Chris Borgman are working closely to examine various FTE-based TIF allocation models, clarify potential mitigation measures and enable better communication to the campus.

An ITPB subgroup of Kathy Komar, Mike Schill, Sam Morabito, Alfonso Cardenas, and Jim Davis are looking at the current TIF principles, and will meet with Academic Senate faculty representatives to propose any TIF model and cost distribution formula and billing process changes.

There were three lines of discussion on TIF implementation.

One line of discussion focused on the impact of TIF on contracts and grants.

• Problems and complaints associated with charging the TIF on grants that are very low overhead were discussed.  There was a question on the TIF and its application to training grants. TIF only applies to people who are in the Employee Database.

• There were also questions on direct or indirect costs in contracts and grants in terms of its fairness and that it could pose inequity.
• There was a question on what happens if someone gets a grant that supports a number of faculty and students. Should the TIF be charged directly to the grant, rather than to the unit paying the faculty in the first place?
• It was pointed out that phone charges were charged to contracts and grants in the past. 

A second line of discussion focused on the TIF and students – both those who are employed on campus and those who are not.

• For students who are paid through training grants in which the money overall is small and stipends are small, the TIF is a heavy tax.
• Student employees can be problematic.  For example in the Library, there are 500 students that don’t even have their own terminals.
• Is the TIF charged for graduate students who get stipends or fellowships? Mike Schilling said that people must be on payroll – and in the EDB - to be counted for the TIF
• It was pointed out that the allocation model and the source of the funding must be considered separately.  The application of the TIF to students is being reviewed and is part of the analysis
• There were questions on whether students should be counted as a percentage and questions about the impact of a large numbers of students creating more demand on system.
• It was suggested that students should be looked at as profit centers, while faculty and staff should be considered cost centers.  Concerns were raised that students could potentially be charged twice if the TIF applied to students, as many are already paying the IEI fee.
• It was suggested that if the campus charges per student, the money could come from some place other than student’s department - for example, the Chancellor’s office might pay.

A third line of discussion focused on who “wins” and who “loses” and whether there should be mitigation.

• It was pointed out that no matter how they change the cost basis there will be winners and losers in the new system and that there is a need to consider mitigation.
• Several algorithms for cost mitigation were analyzed when setting up the TIF. 
• It was also suggested that we look not only at who uses the services, but also whether or not some items now being supported by TIF are common good infrastructure to support as such, at where a particular service in the TIF is common good --IT services cannot be parsed out just by demand.
• Jim Davis said that this was the same issue that the Deans are worried about. Discussion ended with agreement that the subgroup will be looking at these same issues.

The ITPB endorsed that the EVC should examine various FTE-based TIF allocation models, clarify potential mitigation measures, and enable better communication to campus.

Agenda Item 4:  CCLE Update

Jim Davis gave an update on CCLE progress:

• Moodle is moving forward through spring and summer as an alpha project, including classes from:  Anderson, Humanities, Life Sciences, Nursing.  400 students will be on the system.
• The question now is how to go forward.  There is a need to look at the broad impact and requirements of CCLE and to scope it appropriately.
• There is a need to form a CCLE Functional Oversight Committee  with this proposed structure:
• Two Deans (college, professional schools)
• Two CCC members
• Two faculty (FCET chair, Senate VC)
• ITPB representative
• Graduate Division and Undergraduate Division
• Graduate and undergraduate student body representatives

Meeting Adjourned at 5:13 pm.