Attendance: Bazewicz, Candiotti (chair), Clarke, Pollock, Stam, Yardley

 The meeting came to order at 11:30 a.m. in Mead Hall, Room 103.  The minutes of the
October 2  meeting were approved.  The major item on the agenda was the report from the
Graduate School concerning technology priorities.  That report listed several priorities that have
been mentioned in other contexts, including appropriate PC’s for the faculty, mediation of
classrooms, use and development of the campus LAN,  training and remote access.   The report
mentioned a specific need regarding affiliate faculty members, who are part term faculty
members with continuing association with the Graduate School.

The report contained two issues which were particular to the Graduate School.  One was
use of the writing classroom by graduate students who teach English 1.  By using this facility,
they obtain training in up-to-date teaching methods.  The second was use of a video classroom
and two way video equipment in connection with the Medical Humanities program.  The
University has the equipment as a result of a statewide grant, but has not yet installed it in a
desirable space.  The Graduate School report recommended, and the committee concurred, that it would be desirable to install this equipment in a classroom where seats were set up permanently,
rather than attempting to set up and break down the seating before and after every use of the
equipment.  When the equipment was not it use, the classroom could still be used for regular
teaching.

 The committee discussed the best way of conveying space needs related to technology to
the appropriate University bodies and decided that including them in these minutes and reports
was the means available to it.

 Alan reported that the question of library catalog software had come up at a meeting of
the University Library Committee the previous week.  At that meeting, the Library committee
agreed that it was desirable for appropriate people from the Library and University Technology
to work together on the subject in order to properly understand the options, costs and time tables. This is likely to be longer than a one year project.

 Alan raised an issue about the word processing package that had arisen in the University
Technology Committee, concerning whether we should continue with Corel or consider
switching.  The committee agreed that this issue was operational rather than strategic, and also
recommended that any operational consideration of changing the package be deferred until next
year because of the number of other changes being made this year and requiring user re-training.

 The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.