Back
to Minutes and Agendas
MINUTES OF THE E-BERKELEY STEERING COMMITTEE
Meeting of April 18, 2002Chancellor's Conference Room - California Hall
Members present: EVC and Provost Paul Gray, Chair, AVC Richard Black for VC Genaro Padilla, AVC Greg Brown, VC Beth Burnside, Trish Cascardi for VP William Webster, AVC Ron Coley, Director Jon Conhaim, Asst VC Barbara Davis for VP Christina Maslach, Mara Hancock for Professor Philip Stark, Dean Ralph Hexter, Chris Hoffman for Dean Mary Ann Mason, VC Jim Hyatt, Executive Director Helen Kelly, AVC Jack McCredie, Tessa Michaels for AVC David Moers, VC Horace Mitchell, Director Barbara Morgan, Professor James Siegrist.
Also attending: Tim Heidinger, Undergraduate Affairs; Barbara VanCleave
Smith, Financial Services; and Monica Hastings, e-Berkeley Program Office.
1. Welcome
and Approval of Minutes from March 21, 2002 Meeting
Paul Gray welcomed
the Committee members and outlined three sets of projects to be considered
at today’s meeting: Innovative Projects with sponsors requesting no more
than $20,000 from central funding; e-Berkeley projects funded last year requiring
ongoing support; and projects that exceed the $20,000 Innovation Fund cap.
Minutes from the March 21st meeting were approved as distributed. Tessa Michaels was introduced as the new Chief Technology Officer for BAS.
2. Description
of E-Berkeley Budget Process
Helen
Kelly summarized the budget process thus far. E-Berkeley was part of the campus
budget call, and 41 proposals were received by the e-Berkeley Program Office.
These were posted on a web site and reviewed by three committees, the Administrative
and Student Services Computing Subcommittee (ASSCS), the Educational Technology
Committee (ETC), and the e-Berkeley Implementation Task Force (EBITF). ETC
reviewed educational projects and ASSCS reviewed administrative projects;
EBITF reviewed all proposals. Recommendations and comments from each committee
were distributed to the Steering Committee.
The
EBITF report noted that technical training expense was not included in the
proposals. EBITF recommends that EBSC direct the sponsors of the CalPact training
program (Human Resources and IST) to review the CalPact curriculum and bring
it more into line with the e-Berkeley vision.
Helen
directed everyone’s attention to the e-Berkeley Proposal Review, a summary
listing 12 recommended Innovative Projects, showing how each committee ranked
them. Jim Hyatt summarized the comments from the committees and noted that
the total dollars for the recommended Innovative Projects exceeds the available
funding ($130,000).
Paul Gray asked how many members had read the project descriptions in detail, and received what he deemed a reasonable response. Jon Conhaim distributed copies of the proposals and gave a brief outline of each project. Steering Committee members familiar with each project also commented and responded to questions.
3. Steering Committee Prioritization of Budget Requests
The voting by the e-Berkeley Steering Committee proceeded, using the Controller’s Office “Option Finder” electronic voting system managed by Barbara VanCleave Smith. Members or their representatives were invited to vote. The resulting prioritized list was as follows:
1.
Web Front-end for Student Awards Processing
2. Web-enabled Audio Powerpoint Pilot
3. New Student College Health Planning Tool Kit
4. SmartCard Authentication
5. On-Line Budget Submissions
6. Airbears Wireless Services
7. ETS Web Services Production Team
8. E-Senate Online Applications
9. Content for Teaching and Learning
10. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) web-based database and update facility
11. Maintenance of Departmental Administrative Contacts
12. Web-to-PDA Pilot in Haas
Jim
Hyatt announced that in terms of dollars, the first 9 Innovative Projects
could be funded for $130,000. There was general agreement that this was a
reasonable outcome of the voting process.
Helen
referred the Committee to documents labeled “Funded e-Berkeley Projects
- Additional Funds Required” and “Summaries & Accomplishments
of Funded Projects Requiring Additional Funds.” She noted that seven
projects require additional funds, and that two of the nine projects funded
last year (WebCast and e-Travel) do not require further funding at this time.
The spreadsheet shows the permanent funds requested, what was received, and
the amount of the current request. Most of the funding last year was temporary.
Helen requested that the Committee consider these projects and make recommendations
to the Cabinet.
Paul
Gray commented that it is a foregone conclusion that these projects will be
supported if possible. Jim Hyatt said that some projects were more successful
than others, and this should be considered. Jon Conhaim said there have been
some problems with project management, which should be addressed by providing
guidelines, making the project management process simpler over time. Some
options could be considered, such as out-sourcing. He said that some necessary
extensions of projects are going to require further funding; paperless payment
processing is an example. Jack McCredie said that this project was more complex
than most other projects, requiring interfaces with banks and protection against
big security risks. All agree that the benefits of the project are many and
that it is an essential element of e-Berkeley.
Jim
Hyatt said that the Committee has an obligation to advance projects that have
been successful to the campus budget process. He also noted that any funding
will be temporary, and other funding sources must be sought.
Paul
Gray moved the discussion to the next item under consideration, the “Projects
Not Meeting Innovation Fund Criteria.” Helen Kelly said that these projects
exceeded the dollar limits of the Innovative Funds project criteria; however
the reviewing committees felt these were important proposals. She suggested
three options for dealing with these projects: (1) throw them out because
they did not meet the funding criteria; (2) go back to the project sponsors
and try to help them find other funding sources; or (3) identify important
projects and advance them as part of the budget process. She suggested that
the Committee decide how to handle such requests in general.
Paul Gray asked whether these projects are part of the unit budget submissions. Jack McCredie answered that the clear guidelines of the Innovative Fund Project criteria, and the limitations, brought up questions about what to do with large projects that were thought to be important last year during the e-Berkeley process. Paul said that these should make their way back into the individual budget requests from departments. Jim Hyatt suggested that Vice Chancellors insert these projects among their prioritized requests and also work to “cobble together” funds from several sources, brokering funding through partnerships among departments. ACTION: Paul Gray asked who is going to oversee this “cobble process;” Helen Kelly offered the services of the e-Berkeley Program Office.
4. Communicating Results of Prioritization Process to Campus Departments
ACTION: Jon Conhaim will make sure that project sponsors know the status of their submissions. The e-Berkeley Program Office will begin working with owners of projects that will receive funding, and will help sponsors whose projects were not approved to find other sources of funding. It is important to make sure that departments are aware of others with common interests, in order to identify collaborative opportunities and form partnerships
5. Announcements
Paul
Gray asked for any further announcements, and there were none.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Future
Meetings
Thursday,
June 27, from 10:00 am – noon, Chancellor’s Conference Room, California
Hall
Wednesday,
August 28, 2002, from 10:00 – noon, Chancellor’s Conference Room,
California Hall
Monday, September 23, 2002, from 2:00 – 4:00 pm, Chancellor’s Conference Room, California Hall
___________________________________________________________________
Email group: e-berkeley_steering@listlink.berkeley.edu
Please send corrections and comments to: SheilaPress, avc_asst@uclink.berkeley.edu