TACT was retired as an offical college committee by action of College Council in the spring of 2005. These pages are no longer updated but are preserved as valuable reference material.

About TACT
Members | Annual Calendar | Meeting Agendas | Meeting Minutes | Background

PRESENT:   Cindy Dietz, Lida Herburger, Patrick Lanning, Barbara McIntire, Linda Loft, Stephen Pruch, Joe Russin, Joe Escobar, Linda Grenz, Kaaren O'Rourke

Facilitator: Stephen Pruch

1.  Note taker today is Linda Loft.

• Kaaren found the minutes from the last meeting and will distribute them soon.
• Stephen gave and update on the Tech fund revenues.  The fund is currently $21K less than a year ago, which matches the drop in student FTE.  However this approximates the amount we have been spending, so we are still on target.
• The following issues that came up after last year's funding allocations and were discussed at some length.
  
• Funding recurring costs without applications:  We agreed that these should be limited to campus-wide annual costs for licensing. Examples given were the Internet fee, WebCT, MS Campus agreement, Novell License, Library licenses, Norton Antivirus.
• Funding for Distance Learning telecourses:  It was agreed that we needed more information before making a decision.
• Funding by line item versus a whole project: We agreed that deleting an item from a project could be done, but that the submitter would be asked for more input concerning the viability of the whole project without the line item.
• Should TACT adopt a stand on the MAC vs. PC issue? It was agreed that this was not a TACT issue.
• Should a standard allocation amount per workstation be used in allocating funds?  There is enough instructional variation that flexibility is needed for a range of workstation types.
• Are we currently overloaded with computer labs and hence should not convert more classrooms to lab rooms?  Stephen has asked Craig Taylor to research lab room utilization using Schedule/Resource25.
  
• Should we continue funding personnel costs through the Tech Funds?  The current allocations are limited to non-contracted, timesheet personnel.  Some part-time lab positions are being converted to contracted positions and will be general-funded for next year.  The concern was not to have requests for personnel funds take the majority of the Tech Fee dollars.  It was agreed to keep the timesheet personnel costs about the same percentage of total fund allocations as last year.
• Should TACT 'manage' or 're-think' a request because of appropriateness?  Last year's examples requiring printer allocations to be duplex printers or substituting color ink-jet printers instead of color laser printers were mentioned.  It was agreed that the submitting area generally knew their needs best, but when we see an issue that is college-wide for efficiency or consistency we will 'manage' the request.
• Non-instructional student use of funds:  The project requests will not be funded similar to non-student technology use.
• Are we going to allow more input on projects if needed?  Yes, but perhaps using a more formal request process for additional information than what has happened in the past.  Joe E. suggested collecting additional input similar to last year's applications so that the group could review it online.
   
• Additional Issues
• Should we keep the policy of no carryover for late approvals & purchases?  Yes, projects can still be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for extenuating circumstances
• Are the Reserve funds adequate?  Current reserve funds are approximately $200K.  It was decided that we needed a policy for the amount and a policy on how it is spent. 20% of the total budget was discussed.  Using the funds for exceptional large expenditures from projects or for strategic developments was discussed.  Stephen will draft a policy statement to bring back to TACT.
• What are the contingency, bad debt, and reserve percentages to be set-aside in next year's budget?  We agreed to have 0% for reserve as it is currently at 20% of the total budget; 5% for contingency, which seemed to work well last year, and 4% for bad debt as set by the college.
• Estimated revenue projection from next year's Tech fees:  Stephen will get revenue estimates from Marie.