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 These pages are no longer updated but are preserved as valuable reference material.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:   Linda Grenz, Barbara McIntire, Stephen Pruch, Joe Escobar, Kaaren O’Rourke, Lida Herburger, Cindy Dietz, Patrick Lanning, Joe Russin

Facilitator: Stephen Pruch

1.  The minutes were tentatively approved as written.

2. Tech fee request process for FY05.

• There are 117 initiatives, over $2.1 million in requests.
• Use the Excel spreadsheet to work on your own, Stephen will then compile a group ranking.
• The columns:
• "Dept. Initiative Number" refers back to narrative in Chapter 5.
• "Initiative Description" is a short summary..
• "Amount Requested" is the total amount..
• "Ranking" will get filled in automatically based on the group's total. Individual rankings will be used to get a group ranking, NOT raw scores.
• "Professional Judgment" is our opportunity to use our wisdom, experience, etc. as a holistic score.
• “Impact on Students: biggest factor (weight of 10) – How many, how direct is their use, etc. Use the Narrative in Chapter 5.
• “Alignment with College Plans”: relate back to the “Vision”, Strategic Directions, etc. Use the old and new “Directions”.
• “Other Resources Available”: some discussion around this item. Use Perkins, previously funded, carryover. More resources equates to a lower score.
• “Appropriate for the Tech Fee”: rank “0” as not appropriate, “1” as appropriate
  • Even if you rank a “0”, you should still rank all other criteria
  • It was decided that a majority of 6 “0”’s would disqualify the proposal
• “Sorting Criteria” will be ranked automatically.
• Log in to Netware to access the “U” drive and download the informational spreadsheet
• Stephen will email the actual ranking spreadsheet soon
• The Chapter 5 narrative will be available soon, electronically, AND Stephen will provide hard copies.
• Discussion about the dates of the requests revealed that the range of dates went from ’03-’04 all the way through ’06-’07. How do we deal with requests that are NOT for ’04-’05? Were the Unit Planning instructions ambiguous? Stephen will request clarification from Sonya.
• Schedule:
• by 4/5, e-mail rankings in to Stephen
• 4/8 meeting, 1st review –go through the entire list and determine appropriateness, if more information is needed, etc.
• 4/22 meeting – try to finalize
• 5/13 meeting - give our “blessings”.
• 5/27 meeting – look ahead to next year; Technology Council relationship