December 11, 1997

To: President John Welty

From: John A. Cagle, Chair, Academic Information Technology Committee

Subject: December 11th Issues with CETI Plan

The Academic Information Technology Committee would like to highlight some important issues of continuing salience in the evolving CETI plan.

Planning Timeline and Academic Governance

1. The planning documents still do not inspire confidence in the future of computing in the CSU. The scope of the proposed partnership is so broad and encompassing that time must be allowed not only for constructive consultation to perfect the plan, but also for the review of the plan by the various administrative and faculty officers, committees, and so forth. Time must be provided for the necessary and broad-based review and approval processes.

2. Although recent versions of the partnership plan have clarified numerous issues, the matter of governance and authority still is a central concern. Among areas of chief concern we would point to the faculty's primary responsibility for curriculum and personnel. The faculty's role in developing and approving both the curriculum and in determining and judging the qualifications of those who teach in the name of the University is of critical importance. Explicitly the partnership plans and agreements must identify, recognize, and preserve the important academic governance and administrative mechanisms, including the Academic Senate(s), auxiliary organizations, Extended Education, etc.

Technical Infrastructure and Service Issues

3. The thrust of the plan, to the degree that we can understand it, is on the infrastructure "to the faceplate." A communication media with nothing to communicate is without purpose. The problem is that without the capacity of the faculty to develop the curriculum (i.e., appropriate workstations and software) and the capacity to deliver that curriculum to the students (i.e., classroom hardware and software, student access assured, etc.), that infrastructure will just sit there with nothing to do. Then by the time the CSU and CETI figures out several years down the road how to get the workstations and software for the faculty, students, labs, and classrooms, the infrastructure will no doubt be obsolete and need to be replaced. A first-priority must include faculty workstations, classrooms with appropriate media, and student access.

4. Current infrastructure plans indicate that the UNIX-based servers Fresno State now uses (i.e., Lennon, Info, and Zimmer) would be replaced by several NT-servers. The NT servers do not have the performance, security, and communications needed for reliable service. Windows NT is not currently an operating system suitable for the number of users we have on our campus-wide email machines for staff and students. Win NT may possibly be so in the future, but experiences with Microsoft operating systems in the past suggest that there will continue to be serious problems. It would be moronic to abandon our Zimmer and Lennon machines that are excellent machines for their purposes. It would be particularly moronic to abandon them for something as uncertain as Win NT. A change like this would push us back ten years. We must not replace these UNIX systems with less powerful operating environments not suited to the purpose of serving the large numbers of faculty and students we have.

5. Fresno State has created and maintains a well-functioning Helpdesk which is accessible by telephone or e-mail from faculty, students, or administrators "anywhere, anytime." We have serious concerns about the scope of the first and second level services proposed. We also have serious concerns about whether we will continue to provide access to the Helpdesk for faculty and students off-campus and for computers in their homes. We strongly feel the base of the Helpdesk functions should continue to be on campus in the hands of our professionals--not at a distance location. There should be a high priority on "anywhere, anytime" accessibility and immediate responsiveness for faculty and students for the full-range of problems.

6. CETI's plans for workstations remain vague and what is not vague is troublesome. For example, in some disciplines (such as Education) there is a compelling argument for Macintosh workstations, but the CETI plans seem to suggest that these disciplines will be on their own. What does this mean? What does it mean that Macintosh is acceptable but not recommended? What does it mean for acquisitions of new computers and for technical support? What happens when a School of Education decides to maintain the platform? Where is supplementary funding going to come from to pay for any possible price difference resulting from the massive purchases of PC's for the whole system as opposed to the purchase of a few Macs for a School? Who is going to support the Mac platform and where is funding going to come from to provide technical support? The Macintosh/alternate platform issue is not just a School of Education issue. Many faculty in all departments prefer the Mac platform and concerns about its support are significant. The new Mac OS, Rhapsody, is based upon a Unix kernel and will be suitable for secure, high-performance labs like some of those we have in the School of Natural Sciences. Deleting that option is a significant restriction, in the eyes of many faculty members. While there is a sound rationale for a common platform and software, provision needs to be made to assure the continued viability of these legitimate alternative systems that better fit the curriculum and/or mission of particular schools and departments.

Educational/Instructional Issues

7. We need to be clear about the development and marketing of educational content. We hear that CETI is considering establishing a new structure for content development and sales. We have a well-developed continuing education structure that is already doing this. The future environment is not clearly described, which only adds to the concerns. For example, Web design is a concern. Who will design web based instruction? Are faculty going to be involved in the design or will other people be brought in to design courseware? Will CETI turn more to Extended Education courses that do not require CSU faculty to "teach" the course. Another concern has to do with distance learning. The meaning of distance education could very well change the meaning to something like "off-time" education where a course may be distributed to anyone in the world by off-time access to video servers and electronic feedback. How will this operate? What will be the role of faculty or others in the design and delivery of classes. How will faculty be credited for the courses both in terms of credit and remuneration? Will a formula be established to pay faculty per "off-time" student? Another concern: What is going to happen to television. Our School of Education has a brand new television studio that needs technical support and continuous upgrading. Who is going to be responsible for upgrading of the studio. How is it going to be supported and maintained? What can be produced in that studio? Back to intellectual property: who owns what is produced in the studio? Will there be a fee for studio time, production and post-production time? The relationship of CETI to existing programs (including both the University's baccalaureate and graduate curriculum as well as Extended Education) needs to be clarified.

8. What happens to existing collaborations outside institutions, such as with K-12 institutions. We share our computer "labs" and technological infrastructure with the K-12 community. There is no charge for our exchanges. Is CETI going to impose a fee for use of our equipment and facilities to the K-12 users. Who will administer this structure? We have a Software Regional Preview Center formed with software donations from 23 different companies including Microsoft. How does this fit in CETI's plans. The center is open to the K-12 community as well as to CSUF faculty, staff and students. What will happen with this type of structure after CETI implementation? Who will have access to the software. Can we continue to build on the relationship with the software companies and to provide them with the opportunity to offer software workshops for the K-12 community and our own faculty at no cost? Collaborative relationships between the University and outside institutions must be preserved and enhanced under CETI.

9. Intellectual property concerns continue. Who own materials produced by faculty on CETI equipment? It is typical of corporate America to own anything that is produced by employees with their equipment, on their time and while there is a contractual relationship between the employee and the corporation. The traditional academic practices and policies with respect to intellectual property rights should be ensured.