Information Technology Planning Board (ITPB)
May 1, 2007
Meeting Summary
www.itpb.ucla.edu

ITPB Attendees: Jackson Beatty, Elizabeth Bjork, Christine Borgman, Alfonso Cardenas, Mitch Creem, Jim Davis, Daniel Fabbri, Xue Hua, Bill Jepson, David Kaplan, Kathleen Komar, Sam Morabito, Michael Schill

Guests: Ross Bollens, Pat Keating, Larry Loeher, Nick Reddingius, Terry Ryan (in place of Gary Strong), Ruth Sabean, Mike Schilling, Marsha Smith, Greg Spotts, Don Worth

Meeting called to order at 2:30 PM

Agenda Item 1: Meeting Notes

Action: Meeting Notes from April 3, 2007 were approved with a minor amendment to be added as agreed in meeting.
 
Agenda Item 2: TIF Allocation & Mitigation Models

Jim Davis presented a report on behalf of the ITPB TIF sub-group (E. Bjork, A. Cardenas, J. Davis, K. Komar, S. Morabito, M. Schill, M. Schilling, A. Lavine), based on meetings that were held with Academic Senate faculty representatives and Deans Council.

Three Allocation Models are being considered to raise approximately $13,000,000/yr

Model 1) FTE based on faculty, staff and those student workers who are in Employee Database (except work-study students): 27774 FTE, ($39.00 per FTE per month)

Model 2) FTE based on faculty, staff, and student workers in EDB, excluding RA’s and work-study students: 25193 FTE, ($42.87 per FTE per month)

Model 3) FTE based on faculty, staff and all graduate and undergraduate students (1/2 FTE for students): 40591 FTE ($26.61 per FTE per month)

The past phone line model is no longer viable for funding infrastructure. 

Model 1 - The current TIF allocation is defensible with respect to charging grants, and achieves a relatively balanced campus allocation.

Model 2 - Is not defensible for contracts and grants but maintains a relatively balanced campus allocation.

Model 3 - Is defensible with respect to contracts and grants, but dramatically skews infrastructure costs towards the academic units.

The TIF sub-group is recommending:
Continuing with the currently implemented allocation model (Model 1) that charges contracts and grants. Contracts and grants that have experienced a greater than $5,000 annual increase should be eligible for mitigation support (adjusted to match average impact) for a period of two years, retroactive to the current fiscal year.  Annual cost increases below $5K  should be mitigated on a case-by-case basis within the academic unit.  Funding of mitigation, and the amount of mitigation, has not yet been determined.

Discussion Points:

• Medical Enterprise Group prefers Model 3, but also counting students as full FTEs. It feels it is the most equitable allocation of costs in terms of actual technology usage.  Other members feel strongly that Model 3 would necessitate charging students a fee, an action that would be politically difficult to achieve in the present climate. Even if charging students is not viable, the Medical Enterprise Group feels that the campus should deal realistically, even if over a longer period, with the true costs of providing IT to the entire campus community. Allocating costs disproportionately simply because there are no adequate funding mechanisms in place today should not then be the effective end point of the discussion.
• Without measurements of infrastructure usage by type of person and department, (there is agreement these are not practical to institute), it is difficult to precisely allocate costs across units, faculty, staff and students.  So the best way to design a model may be simply to avoid unmitigated, disproportionate hardships.
• IT infrastructure is a public good that benefits everyone, not just the heavy users.
• It might be possible to include students in the allocation model without using a student fee as the funding mechanism.
• Some members expressed confusion on “what the sub-group” has been asked to do and concern that the work does not meet the expectation. Has ITPB been asked to create an ideal model that satisfies all stakeholders, or simply to design a practical funding structure that can actually be implemented this year?
• It was felt that the summary document was mixing up “allocation” of costs with funding and that it needed to be reworked to separate these.

Action: ITPB directs the TIF Sub-Group to return with a revised draft incorporating comments from today’s meeting, so that ITPB can vote on the revised recommendations via email. Specifically, the document is to be restructured to present allocation models, with separate commentary on possible sources of funding for each model. Upon subsequent agreement, ITPB will report its recommendations to EVC Scott Waugh and to the Academic Senate in response to the February Academic Senate resolution on TIF

Agenda Item 3: Security – an Institutional Compliance Strategy

Jim Davis presented a report on security-related actions that have taken place since the security breach. Even though systems are federated, security is becoming an institutional responsibility.  In revising security practices, it is important to balance security with the openness of information that is necessary for a well-functioning academic institution.  The university must also respond to an increasingly rigorous regulatory environment regarding personally identifiable data.

Davis continued with an overview of new security programs.  Security reports will now be presented to the university audit committee, based in part on third-party audits of important systems.  UCLA as an institution will be conducting periodic security reviews of various systems and will be providing oversight to ensure unit compliance with university security policies. Data retention policies for personally identifiable data will continue to be reviewed and strengthened.

Discussion Points:

• One reason for expanding internal and third-party audit capabilities is to discover weaknesses that are not currently known.  The institution as a whole cannot simply promulgate best practices and hope that units are following them.
• It will be important to work closely with units during audits to avoid any service disruptions.

Action: The ITPB indicated support for the overall directions the IT security program is now building.

Agenda Item 4: Security – CCLE Update

Pat Keating of the Faculty Committee on Educational Technology (FCET) expressed the committee’s enthusiastic support of the CCLE project.

Xue Hua reported on a GSA meeting that reviewed the CCLE project.  GSA is very supportive of CCLE overall, and is especially interested in the collaboration functionality for research and group projects.

Daniel Fabbri reported from the undergraduate USAC meeting.  Over the long term, USAC prefers a centralized system that provides the ability to collaborate across classes and departments.

Ruth Sabean handed out a printed update from the Project Oversight Group regarding (i) alpha project underway for fifteen spring 2007 classes and (ii) planning process for the scope of service to be provided for the summer 2007 session.  The ITPB thanked Ruth for her many years of service at UCLA and recognized her fine work with the FCET and CCLE project – as she is retiring at the end of May.

Terry Ryan, Rose Rocchio and Julie Austin have been appointed to form a three person CCLE planning team to develop a definitive plan by August.  A functional oversight group will also be put together shortly.

Action: ITPB approves the formation of a functional oversight group, by acclamation.

Agenda Item 5: Policy Resolution on Campus IT Remote Services
 
Marsha Smith gave a brief update on the draft letter communicating the policy adjustment.  In the interest of time, ITPB members are encouraged to submit any comments or concerns on the draft letter via email.

Announcements: Judi Smith has been appointed as an ITPB member.
Members are asked to submit recommendations for two new faculty ITPB members replacing outgoing members Chuck Taylor and Brian Copenhaver who have served multiple 3-year terms.

Meeting adjourned at 4:42 pm.