Attendance: Bazewicz, Candiotti (chair), Clarke, Erb, Huber, Riemann, Yardley

 The meeting came to order at 12:15 p.m. in the President’s Dining Room.  Alan Candiotti
briefly reviewed the main goals of the 1994 strategic planning document, which were to
construct the campus network, increase the pace of faculty development in technology and
budget for maintenance and amortization of major equipment.   Alan told the committee that its
charge was to produce a strategic planning document for campus technology and that it would be
receiving reports from the three schools outlining their major technology priorities by November
1.  In order to be able to produce a report in time for the FY 2000 budget process, it was
necessary to begin dealing with general issues before November 1.  The committee noted that it
was important for the two subcommittees dealing with the Web and the library to be in close
communication with this committee because their recommendations could have an impact on
facilities and support structures.

 The remainder of the meeting was devoted to discussion of major infrastructure issues.
The committee agreed quickly that, with the goal of constructing the network almost
accomplished, a follow up goal for the next strategic plan was to develop and use the network
and to provide full access to it for the University community.  With a goal of fully migrating
basic data communication from the current VMS based CWIS and e-mail system (Daniel/Forest)
to the LAN by July 1, 1999, the committee discussed major steps that needed to be taken as early as possible, by the beginning of the spring 1999 semester, to ensure an uninterrupted transition.  These steps include:

Selection of a new e-mail system to run on the LAN
Establishing remote access to the LAN for students, faculty and staff
Ensuring that students who continue to be enrolled after July 1, 1999 have network cards
     so that they may have access to the LAN
Deciding where the library database would reside after July 1, 1999, including software,
     operating system and hardware requirements

 The committee discussed the need to migrate all students who will return to Drew in the
fall of 1999 to the LAN during the spring semester in order to facilitate training, allow students
to use the new system over the summer, and avoid a situation wherein students would return in
the fall disconnected from e-mail and have to wait for some time for their computers to be
configured for the LAN while new students are also receiving initial training.

 The committee discussed the necessary provisions for operating the network and using it
effectively for academic support and campus communications.  The University invested
approximately $2.5 million in construction of the network (including approximately $1.7 million
in grants from the state of New Jersey).  About 90% of that cost was for the conduit system, fiber
optic cabling and interior station wiring, which has a long lifetime.  The remaining 10% was for
network electronics, servers and software, which has a five year replacement cycle.  The type of
hubs and switches used in the network changed between the first installation phase in 1996 and
the third phase in 1998.  We envision a need (shared by many universities) to increase network
capacity to the desktop from 10 Mbps to 100 Mbps within three years and have taken initial steps to do that as it has become practical.

 Alan reported that there was a budget of $50,000 for leasing and maintaining Daniel and
Forest that could be reallocated to the LAN and $32,000 already budgeted for network
maintenance, so that we would start with $82,000 per year for network support.  Alan stated that
this amount would be insufficient to meet all the basic needs, but would be a start.

 The committee briefly discussed the new administrative system and noted that it would
be used by the entire University community, which would be a major change from the current
system with approximately 100 users.  Maintenance, support and effective usage of this new
system should also be a strategic goal.  A staffing and support program will emerge from the
process of selection and conversion of the new system.

 The committee then discussed the collection of university owned personal computers as a
campus utility.  The University owns 700 to 800 personal computers, which are on faculty and
staff desks, in offices, and in academic locations including the Academic Computer Center, the
Library, the Language Resource Center and science labs.  It is necessary to maintain these
computers on a replacement cycle which is now shorter than five years.  Some University
personal computers are as much as seven years old and approximately 100 on faculty and staff
desks as well as others in offices are incapable of running Windows 95.  Windows 95 will be
necessary for the new e-mail system, the administrative system and year 2000 compliance, so
there is an emerging priority, beyond current budget allocations,  to replace those systems by
July 1.

 The final subject of discussion was the “distance learning.”  Anne Yardley and Paul
Riemann noted that the Theological School had some priorities in this area and asked for advice
on how to proceed.  Neil Clarke said that it was important to identify and prioritize the types of
distance learning since the phrase has many meanings and requires different types of tools,
training, and support.  Alan noted that, as a University, we wished to do things well, and that it
was therefore important to focus our efforts in distance learning on specific programs that we
would accomplish well.

 The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. and another meeting was set for October 2.