November 3, 2016

Present: Cheu, Harrell, Hansen, Hernandez, King, Moreau, Pape, Ranck, Rosenberg, Shannakian, Spatafore; Waileasa

---

Approval of October Minutes

---

The minutes of October 6, 2016, were approved.

---

Technology Plan Review

---

Spatafore reminded the committee of the timeline to review the draft Technology Plan which everyone contributed to and notably a working group consisting of Cheu, Harrell, King, Pape, and Ranck. Spatafore requested feedback to the final draft Technology Plan 2016-2019. Figures must be added and numbered. Kudos to Edwin Carungay who did an outstanding job on the graphics and Alex Harrell for analyzing and color-coding the Technology Survey, included in the appendix. [Through a Nov. 17 committee email, the plan period was revised to 2017-2020 in view of the year 2016 coming to a close.]

Spatafore provided an overview of the plan document including the table of contents, the president’s preface, the introductions outlining the equity focus, college and district roles and responsibilities, the committee re-visioning process and development timeline. The body of technology plan includes strategic capabilities, three-year goals and objectives, a one-year implementation plan, evaluation plan, alignment with Accreditation standards and the appendix which will include survey analysis. Spatafore and Moreau discussed the alignment of the colleges and district plans.

Areas of Focus:

• Technology survey
• Displays – major categories
• Strategic Capabilities includes a graphic from a college perspective
• Table of Contents –two corrections to the committee list: clarifying Faris Wailesea as the student representative, and Tamica Ward
• President’s Preface
• Numbering figures
• Equity is critical and the plan should include evidence of integrated planning
• Committee re-visioning – historical accounting
• Timeline – historical to first workshop 1-1/2 yrs ago with many work group meetings following
• P 10 – Add Faculty Association (FA)
• Two typographical corrections

Implementation Activities:

• Review if the activity is current, relevant, further work required, or not needed
• Comments about deployment of tablets and Airwatch/MDM solution for adding apps
• Bottom of P 15 – last paragraph references committee’s accessibility expert member, repeated on P 17

Evaluation Section

• Satisfaction? Have things improved?
• P 18: check tickets, infrastructure. Utilization rates, time on task, how engaged are students? Through website analytics?
• Who is this document for? How effective is it? Equity data? Who is accessing on line?
• Analysis of equity
• P 19 Alignment with Accreditation standards

Goals

• Mapping in Goal 1 – cross reference the map. Align with accreditation
• P 20 – layout correction
• P 20 - typo correction

Spatafore reminded the group that while Owiesny was not present, she had previously expressed interest in an application to assist with class attendance.

Request for approval of the Technology Plan will be made at the Dec. 8 College Council meeting. Prior to that, Spatafore and Pape will present the draft plan to all governance groups and Senates.

Open Item: Pape advised Moreau et al. that some browsers in lab computers allow auto fill and password saving. Moreau said that ETS had been made aware of the issue and is looking into it.