We have to be caustious - DOC by 2d3k8FA


									                        Information Technology Commission
                                    Winter 2001
Big Bend Community College                                                       Draft
                                                                   November 8-9, 2001

Member                       College                                      Present
Vacant                       Bates Technical College
Rich Henry                   Bellevue Community College                   Yes
Bob Billings                 Bellingham Technical College                 Yes
Russ Beard                   Big Bend Community College                   Yes
Mike Klim                    Cascadia Community College                   Yes
Mark Johnson                 Centralia Community College                  No
Phil Sheehan                 Clark College                                Yes
Harley Moberg                Clover Park Technical College                Yes
Rich Cummins                 Columbia Basin College                       No
Victor Portolese             Edmonds Community College                    Yes
Anne Pflug                   Everett Community College                    Yes
Sandy Lloyd                  Grays Harbor College                         Yes
Carolyn Hershberger          Green River Community College                Yes
Dick Arbak                   Highline Community College                   Yes
Mike Potter                  Lake Washington Technical College            Yes
Steve Jones                  Lower Columbia College                       No
Tom Bates                    North Seattle Community College              Yes
Brian Dahl                   Olympic College                              Yes
Fred Goodwin                 Peninsula College                            Yes
Dan Russ                     Pierce District                              No
Michael Hoelscher            Pierce College                               Yes
Kay Harb                     Renton Technical College                     Yes
Wai-Fong Lee                 Seattle Central Community College            Yes
Ron Hamberg                  Seattle District                             No
Jack Hanson                  Shoreline Community College                  Yes
Steve Bradley                Skagit Valley College                        Yes
Frankie Schlender            South Puget Sound Community College          Yes
Dennis Colgan                South Seattle Community College              Yes
Mary Carr                    Spokane Community College                    No
Dick Hol                     Spokane District                             Yes
John McCollom                Spokane Falls Community College              No
Gary Sigmen                  Tacoma Community College                     Yes
Bill Storms                  Walla Walla Community College                Yes
Choi Halladay                Wenatchee Valley College                     Yes
Ray White                    Whatcom Community College                    No
Peggy Keller                 Yakima Valley Community College              Yes

Ex-Officio Members Present   Organization
Mike Scroggins               State Board

Others Present               Organization
Andy Marcelia                DIS
Corey Knutsen                CIS
John Lowdon                  CIS
Nancy Petersen               CIS
Deb Poarch                   CIS
Chris Brown                  SBCTC – Virtual Campus
Suanne Carlson               SBCTC – Virtual Campus
Sherry Bond                  Yakima Valley Community College
Clarissa Wolfe               Yakima Valley Community College
Walt Marth                         Seattle District
Ron McKinney                       Lake Washington Technical College

Convene Meeting
Bill Storms called the meeting to order at 9:00am.

Opening Remarks
I kept saying I have to bring the Snapple bottle and remember to bring the spoon…. 
In case you don’t know, this is Moses Lake. We had on the agenda that Dr Bill Bonaudi from Big Bend
would join us for opening remarks. He was the past chair of the CIS executive committee – so that had
some special meaning for us. He was called away on an emergency - so we searched for a replacement
and are happy to have Ken Turner, Vice President for Adminstration.

I’m supposed to give the pre-canned speech but I refused. I’m going to wing it. Welcome to Big Bend
Community College. We are happy you are here. We don’t have a lot of these meetings on our campus
and I don’t know why. We should have more. We like to have the system know more about Big Bend.
When Bill started at Big Bend, he said people don’t know we’re here. Harley Moberg just made me realize
how important that was. He said – so how far away are you from Big Bend Community College. We’re
happy we’re here. I see Russ has given you each a little ‘roach clip’ [memo holder from Center for
Business and Industry Services]. He wants to make sure you remember us. This was an air force base
and we are coming on our 40 anniversary in 2002. There has been a raging debate about whether we
should have moved out here or stayed at the south campus. That debate will probably continue. There are
26 buildings left. We are now on the list to get a new library – though all capitol money is ‘paused’. In
conclusion, we are pretty happy with our campus. As you know, one of our main programs is the airplane
maintenance program. We’re kind of proud that we are here at the old Larson Air Force base.

Special Recognition
Rich Henry presenting

A plaque was presented to Ken Turner for Bill Bonaudi. Ken graciously accepted it and will pass it on to

A plaque was presented to Jack Hanson for his work as past chair.

Introduction of new folks
Anne Pflug – Everett Community College
Introductions around the room.

Review of minutes
Minutes approved and accepted.

There are several WACTC committees that we have representatives. Dennis Colgan is a member of the
virtual campus and WAOL board. There is a purchasing committee formed that is studying new
purchasing software. Mike Hoelscher was a representative though he is no longer a part of that. Russ
Beard and Dick Arbak are our representatives. Tom Bates and Wai-Fong Lee are representatives to the
operating and capital budget committees.

Operating Budget Report
Tom Bates presenting

The Supplemental Operating Budget requests include support training for dislocated workers and
additional FTE. Second year general salary increase was removed. Facilities maintenance and operations
for new buildings funding is not included. Energy cost increases have not been funded. (see handouts)

Document was passed around about financial emergency being declared – who it affects, how it can be
done, etc. (see handout)
It looks like we could sustain a 6% budget cut – we are trying to get a voluntary 3% from this year and
then only a permanent cut of 3% from next year’s budget.
Capital Budget Report
Wai-Fong Lee presenting

Last meeting was rather interesting because many of the presidents were concerned about the capital
projects that were already started. Everybody had a piece in it. Where do you draw the line about cuts.
They don’t want them to be cut – just postponed. They have waited so long to get there. Right now, at this
time people are already talking about requests for 2003-2005. It is not just November 20 that we need to
be concerned about, but it is also the legislative session in January. There are four categories: matching,
renovation, maintenance, and growth. They put all the four categories on one priority list. Now do they
want to go back and draw the lines differently. Some colleges have already started their project but may
be further down the priority list, and some of the projects that were at the top of the list may not be started
New CAM model has been presented to each campus. Make sure that all the spaces on your campus are
properly coded.

Steve Bradley – you said all the computer labs should be general?

I want all the computer labs to just say “open lab” that are open for students to use. The distributed labs
that are very much program specific should not be open lab, but should be identified by the instructional

Of course, the projects (the 01 and 03) are being postponed.

ITPG Report
Rich Henry presenting

You will recall that when we met in august, ITPG had just had their two day planning retreat and a draft
document had been prepared. Then in October we had a combined two day retreat with the CIS exec to
finalize those strategic documents. What is really good is the increased involvement with the CIS exec. At
the September meeting a few changes were made to the draft documents and were passed at the
September WAC meeting. Two parallel documents emerged because as we started talking about things
like change management at the college level, it was determined that this was no longer just a CIS
strategic plan.

50 people came together for two days for a meeting titled “moving from strategic direction.”
Yesterday we came up with a solid recommendation for the re-hosting activities.

Harley - Given the economic conditions and September 11 and the impending budget cuts are we likely to
get anything out of this.

I don’t think we are spinning our wheels – one of the specific things that we have asked for in this project
is to come with a number of different budget scenarios about how we might address the different

Bill Storms - In terms of funding, John Hurley came up with the phrase ‘attack funding’
John suggested that we not give up too soon. If you look hard enough there are funds available.
Looking at my notes, some colleges carry reserves, why not put that into the virtual campus fund and
have it paid back with interest.

Some of us may have forgotten how ITPG came about and who the reps are. Harley maybe you could
give us some of the overview.

Harley Moberg – there was a study done about 5 years ago.
Dick Hol adds – we got to the stage where we thought that the technology direction of the system didn’t
really represent where we wanted to be. There was a group called SAC that had representatives from
colleges and most of the technology decisions were being made by BAC. The results of the study
indicated that there should be an Information Technology Planning Group that would include 7
representatives from information technology and 6 other representatives from the different commissions.
IRC went away and ITC started.

Harley continues – there were 6 representatives from ITC with the breakdown of representative from large
small east west and technical. Mike Scroggins from the State Board, a representative from the Virtual
Campus, Andy Marcelia from DIS, and Vic Albino from CIS. Originally we were given written requests for
projects to prioritize. At no time were we supposed to worry about the funding for these projects. We have
attempted to alternate the chair and chair elect between ITC and the other commissions. There are three
representatives from the ITPG that attend the CIS executive committee meetings – the chair, the chair-
elect, and an at-large representative. The people that are committed to these activities are probably
spending 25% of their time going to meetings.

Bill Storms – these are the people that you have elected and hopefully they have your faith in the decisions
they make.

SBCTC Update
Mike Scroggins presenting

Good to see the new faces, and the not so new faces and Walt Marth and Dick Arbak are in a category all
your own.
For the reclassification of IT staff, there is a URL with information about this process

Bill Storms – the basic process – these have not been approved yet?

The budget has been approved and there is no reason to think this is not going to happen.

Corey Knutsen – existing classifications, when we talk about moving people over. I am looking at what
they are doing right now and trying to move them over.

In theory you are reading what they are telling you they do and either agree or disagree. Some people take
it as a group exercise and try to take it where they want it to go. If a person is currently a step K, they will
move to the new level at the same step.

How do the colleges get a hold of the money?

It should already be in your budget. But the HR people should know this by the first of December.

Rich Henry – I have a large group of academic support people that are not funded by this and we will have
to find the money for that.

This is for budget purposes only and is a re-classification. If you follow the cross walk, you will get the
budget – if however, you have people currently working out of their class, you will have to come up with
the additional funding required.

Phil Sheehan – you can’t be capricious about this to make the budget work out, employees do have an
appeal process. We need to follow the questionnaire and make sure we have people placed where they
need to be. I will have a few situations where people will be paid higher than the persons supervising

That is one of the reasons that I recommend you do this as soon as possible, so there is plenty of time for
you to deal with the feedback process.

Tom Bates – the biggest problem I am having with this is that the maintenance tech I could oversee the
work of others, but the new category takes you up to a three.

Dick Hol – there are a couple of jobs that were not included like computer operator.

They are not affected. Some institutions have been re-classifying them to get them in these categories.
Harley Moberg – this doesn’t apply to the technical colleges.

Bob Billings – we follow this as a model, but am I correct that there is no money available for the technical

Yes, the technical colleges use collective bargaining for their salaries, so they are not included in this and
will not receive any of the funding.

Rich Henry – collapsing five categories into 2 is a good thing, but it could provide a problem if we get into
a RIF situation.

Frankie Schlender – when we hire new people, is there going to be any way we can put in specific
requirements for the people we are going to hire since these new categories are so general?

Yes, the requirement is that you have to have a supplemental test, but you get to choose which test you
use. I tailor mine to the position I am hiring for.

Dick Hol – is there a glossary of terms for some of the terms that are in these new job categories? I am
afraid that some of the HR people will not be able to understand the technical terms.

There is a document.
The first line supervisor gets to make the recommendation of where they think the crosswalk should go.

The K20 board met last week and through some cost savings of the current contract, we are going to be
able to get some new T1 lines. I have had Ed Vervoort begin to look at who might need some and the
following schools came on the list:

Green River
Bellingham Tech
Lake Washington

We, in K20, are looking at what it means when colleges are making connections to other providers. There
is no K20 protection when your site gets attacked and it can bring down the whole K20 backbone.
We are looking at what it means to move to a DS3 and what the co-pay for the larger pipes might be.

Data Security – we have a person now that their only task is to be concerned about the security of data
going back and forth from the state board to the colleges. We are going to be doing some guidelines for
the retention of working data. We are working with EdVerify for electronic verification of students. We are
looking at a model that is a centralized model. Some registrars have someone doing as much as one
quarter time just verifying students. The nice thing about EdVerify is that data never leaves the campus. If
it gets too difficult for the state board to maintain the entire state, the colleges will have to get involved.

GED testing is now going to be electronic. Answer keys will be faxed to a central server and results will be
almost instantaneous.

FootPrints – who is using it?

ITPG Special Session Report
Rich Henry presenting

The re-hosting project is high on the list. The next step in the project is to get a planning consultant to do
phase I. The timeline has already slipped just a little bit. The presidents will make the decision on the
consultant at there December 6-7 meeting. The VEST includes a lot of folks from ITC and ITPG, Rich
Henry, Jack McKibben, John Hurley, Sandy Lloyd, Ed Lightfoot from UW, CIS folks (Nancy Petersen,
Juanita Morgan, Corey Knutsen, Vic Albino), Suanne Carlson, and Andy Marcelia. The first decision was
that we would use a consultant from the ones that are currently on the state list. There were 50 originally,
got down to 17 and these were narrowed to 4 who came and presented to the VEST. Gartner, KPMG,
Ciber, and CACI. The final two were Gartner and CACI. CACI is not as well known but has lots of
experience in re-hosting. Gartner on the other hand is very well known because of their research activities.
So what it came down to is one organization that is focused and deep and one that is broad and not so

At the joint meeting with ITPG and the VEST members some additional discussions took place. There is a
spreadsheet that identified those qualities that we are looking for in the consultant. And the rating of those
qualities in their order of priority.

Each of the people at the meeting gave their general impression of the ability of each of these consultants
to provide what we were looking for. After an intense day of deliberation, the conclusion of the day was
that CACI is the consulting team that we will recommend to the CIS exec and the full WAC at the next
WAC meeting in December.

Jack Hanson – has CACI had experience doing migration from HP3000 to multiple platforms?

Corey answers – neither had direct experience doing an HP3000 migration, but CACI did have experience
moving from hierarchical databases to relational databases and Gartner had no actual experience doing
actual migrations.

The way we have this process setup, the consultant who does the planning stage will not do the
implementation stage. That was one of the discussions we had since it appeared that CACI might be a
good candidate for the actual implementation.

Ann Pflug – why did we limit our search to just state listed consultants? Has CACI had experience with
oversight of a project like this?

Nancy responds – checking with the references given, CACI has been involved in a number of projects
throughout the entire project.

Bottom line is – we are moving ahead, we have the recommendation and each of us has a very important
role to play. If your president shows up at the next WAC meeting and has not had a discussion about this,
they are likely to want to delay this until they have a chance to look it over. So, we need to go talk to each
of our presidents and let them know what is going on. Charlie Earl is working very hard on this and will
have a packet of information available to the presidents at least a week before the meeting.

Harley Moberg – how much is this going to cost?

There are actually two parts

Dennis Colgan – do you have any idea what CACI was thinking, if they are capable to do the
implementation, why would they remove themselves from that opportunity?

Nancy suggests – CACI have done a lot of work defining tools to do the analysis and planning for
migration projects. There were definitely two approaches to the solutions.

Walt Marth – if they don’t have the right to get the contract, could they be a sub-contractor for the

Andy – yes, since they would not be our contact for the implementation they could be used as a sub
contractor for the project.

Jack Hanson – would their plan lock us in to a particular solution?
Nancy – though they may have a lot of past experience using Oracle or particular solutions, we finally
came to the conclusion that one of the things we are asking of them is to evaluate many solutions and
present them to us.

Rich – make sure you go back to your campus and talk with your presidents.

The process we have gone through has taken us to a conclusion and now we must put on a unified force
to move this project forward. We have now made a decision, let’s make it the right decision. It was clear
that it was a difficult decision and that perhaps either of these two consultants could have done the job
with the appropriate management of the consultant.

Mike – was there any discussion about the big difference in the cost of phase I between the two?

Yes, there was lots of conversation about this. One of the differences could be based on the actual size of
the team that is being suggested. The actual number of people will raise the estimated costs.

From strategic direction to strategic action. Report on the activities of the day. (see handout)

Phil Sheehan – one of the nagging concerns of this meeting, we are in our process leapfrogging over the
data modeling portion that some argue is a critical first step. There was also the acknowledgement that
there has been a lot of work done in the past few years and that all it would take is to gather that together.
I left the meeting not clear on where we are with that.

The scope of the planning consultant grew from that day and some of this information will be given to the
consultant. What’s the least that’s needed to be successful, what’s the most that you could handle, where
are the critical decision factors. The actual details of the day is a 40 page document that can be found on
the ITPG website.

One person with passion is worth 40 that are interested.

Data Warehouse Update
Corey Knutsen and Dick Hol presenting

See handout

A decision was made at the October 3-4 meeting that we want to begin to move all the data over to a
staging area so that work can begin on the next phases of the warehouse.

Walt Marth – one of the things that bothers me is that Quest is now offering special deals to individual
colleges indicating that the list price is now $82,000 and they will sell it to us for $25,000 with an annual
maintenance charge of $16,800.

Dick Hol – for those of us that have the software already, they are charging us uplift fees for running the
software on our new platforms. We are going to have one more phone call with them and try to get them
to understand what our needs are.

One of the reasons that we looked into bridgeware in the beginning was because of the ‘shadowing’
feature that will allow two way updates to the databases. At this point it has been difficult to answer that

It is time to move from “pilot” to production.

CIS Update
Nancy Petersen and Corey Knutsen presenting

Internet charges is really not a technical issue it is more of a budget issue so I suggested that Vic should
present it and he agreed. Though it turns out that Vic couldn’t meet with us today anyway.
Internet costs – we were going to figure out a way to charge each college based on true usage, but the
GigaPop decided that was not really a workable option, so now we have gone back to some sort of
calculation for FTE based charging. Another way to calculate is based on the number of T1’s. That is a
very different split. CIS Exec and the WAC will determine the appropriate funding model.

HP3000 replacements – a number of campuses have installed new boxes. Of the total boxes in the
system (38), 12 boxes are newer (2 9x9’s and 10 A or N) – 26 of them are older versions and will not be
covered after April. A number of campuses are still evaluating what they might do. Need to look at the
issue of moving from 6.0 to 6.5. There needs to be a test plan in how to deal with HPIB equipment. There
are still concerns about speeding up some of the processes – doing things like on-line backup.

Credit card is moving along – in the October 10 general implementation, all of the modifications that
needed to be made to the HP3000 for this to work were done. One thing came up that has caused us to
pull back and that is that OFM has questioned credit card payment processes. The long range costs for
this include a setup fee, transaction fees on a per month fee, there is also the costs that you pay for using
a merchant account like 2%

SID/SSN project – we were assuming that we would be going with a “universal” ID that a student could
use for enrolling at all campuses. After some discussion, it turns out that would be very difficult to manage
a system for keeping track of all the data for individual students in a central database. The path we are
going down now is that students going to two different campuses will need two different numbers. We will
be ready to convert the historical data in the March timeline. In general, we would convert data and assign
ID’s – there would have to be time to make notice to the students, if colleges use student ID cards with
that information, they would have to have time to do that, etc. This is not going to be easy in any sense.

Dick Arbak – what kind of impact will this lack of universal student ID have on the virtual campus?

Rich Henry – we will still be able to use social security number for those kinds of reports.

Dick Arbak – what about concurrent fee calculation? If we don’t have universal ID there may be some
things we have to give up thinking about.

Suanne Carlson – there will be a user login that is created for each student and that will cross walk to
each college’s SID.

Wai-Fong Lee – what is the timeline on the creation of this new ID. Is it going to be alpha-numeric?

It will be 9 characters and there has been discussion about having the first digit be alpha to distinguish it
from an SSN and perhaps have a second character for the district code.

Dick Arbak – is there any idea about how serious the FERPA requirements are? And how it will affect it?

It appears that there might be at least one more that will really affect this.

Carolyn Hershberger – when will the design be finalized? And who’s doing that?

CIS will be doing that. One of the things that you should be doing is looking at where the social security
number pops up and decide whether or not it really needs to.

Re-hosting project – Juanita Morgan has been serving as the project manager for that for some while, but
she has chosen to move back to SMS product manager and we will be replacing this project manager.

Web Transaction Server – there is a phased development plan to improve what we have. The first
changes came from some changes that Tory from Clark College has made. Most of what he was able to
see and do was on the Web server side and not the HP3000. We also found a number of changes we can
make at the CIS. Another phase is to redesign the whole project.

Purchasing System Update
Russ Beard presenting
EPlus, TUPS are a couple of purchasing packages that are available. Eplus has a terrible track record for
support. They are the current Reality software company and have not provided any technical support. A
survey will come to the list serve and it is important for each campus to fill this in and send it back to Russ.
Eplus offers both a hosted solution and an onsite solution. Eplus guarantees that it will interface with the

Walt Marth – if we go back to when Reality was purchased, it was purchased as a replacement for
typewriters and then as soon as it was purchased folks wanted it to do everything.

Phil Sheehan – this involvement with CIS in terms of the hooks to the HP3000 has always been
problematic and if we continue in this same relationship, what keeps this from continuing?

Rich Henry – the TUPS piece is the one that is being suggested to be the answer to all state agencies?
And it is hosted in New York?

Dick Arbak – the Reality system when it was first purchased had far more capabilities than just a
typewriter replacement. For it’s time it was a fully functioning system. As for what it could do, it was pretty
complete, but colleges didn’t use all that it could do. More than ever before there is a wide disparity in
what our large schools need and can afford to do. This shows up in the purchasing system and the data
warehouse system. Both of these new packages are full deal systems, but I don’t know how many of our
smaller schools are going to be able to afford either one of these.

Deb Poarch – at the recent trade show they were the “star attraction” and it is hard to believe that they
only have 250 users.

The functionality of ePlus was really flashy. There are a lot of things in ePlus that we are really looking for.

Jack Hanson – can you give us a ball park figure on the costs of these two packages?

We really are not ready to talk about costs. We are trying to negotiate this on a system wide level and we
are not really ready to give those yet.

Virtual Campus Update
Suanne Carlson presenting

Shared project management for the re-hosting and virtual campus project – it was determined that these
should be combined.

There was an RFP for the class management software – one from eduprise, embanet, and jones. We are
first going to convert WAOL courses and then all of the campuses can use the system and move their
courses to this new system. We will have both WebCT and Blackboard available for classes.
Funding is always a concern and some of the funding for the virtual campus is affected by the current
state of the economy. The pilot project with Grays Harbor College and Skagit Valley College which was
supposed to have students start enrolling in courses this winter will be delayed until the spring quarter.
There has been 37% growth in distance learning and online growth is about 50%.
What we have been able to continue to support is the instruction portion of our activities with the WAOL
piece. It is well known nationally as one of the few successes of consortiums of online learning.

Chris Brown presenting – Suanne covered most of the information very well. To attempt to address some
of the confusion about our name, sometimes being called the WAOL or the virtual campus. The WAOL
courses that have already been created and is an ongoing project remains pretty much the way it was with
significant growth continuing. The new piece of this would be the ability of a student to enroll through the
virtual campus on-line. We have purchased a new HP3000 to handle the online registration. There are
processes running on the individual campuses to interface with this new machine. The webservers are up
and running and are ready to run some test registrations this winter quarter. We will continue to make the
results of our projects available as we move forward.
The second phase of our efforts is to take the site that is WAOL and the processes for managing that and
move it to this new website. The plan is to implement for Spring.

Dick Hol – could you tell us more about your online scheduling?

Searchable catalog – we were anticipating running our pilot first, so we saw a slight difference in these
classes than in the traditional WAOL classes. We started looking at the differences and realized that we
would have to have differences in the naming of these classes to be able to differentiate these on the
3000. A couple of new screens have been created that will allow the colleges to update the college
schedule and the WAOL schedule. A lot of colleges just use this searchable catalog to list their online
courses. We are working on keeping the translation tables current so that students may see how a class
they take at one college translates to another college. Another goal is to just make it as easy as possible
to put their courses in our shared licenses of WebCT and Blackboard.

Anne Pflug – I’ve heard (which doesn’t make it accurate) that the virtual campus classes tuition will be

No, that is not accurate, these courses are charged at the same level of tuition as on campus classes.

In Memory of John Bailey

We would like to take a moment to remember one of our long time colleagues. He had been with the
system for 30 years. During his time with us we remember that he was always an asset to the system and
provided us his keen questioning, expert opinions and many of us have many fond memories of him. A
scholarship fund has been created for him through the Seattle college’s foundation.

Microsoft Update
Shawn Schaefer

We are here today to try to answer all of the questions that the colleges have about Microsoft programs
and software.

Handouts detailing all of the current offerings from Microsoft (Campus Agreement 2.0 + 3.0, work at home
rights, MSDN alliance, premier support, Microsoft Exchange University)

Downgrade rights for Microsoft software. When MS offers a new product all of the old products are pulled
from retail channels. The school has downgrade rights to use the software in the labs. For a student, they
can only go to the Microsoft/permissions website and fill out the form. By the time this gets settled the
student may not have their answer until after the class is over.

Campus agreement – the work at home use rights have changed for Campus Agreement 3.0. The
operating system has been removed from work at home rights.

Changes in campus agreement were due to user feedback – we had to be able to let users choose

Security Issues
Nancy Petersen presenting

Digital certificates – Sandi Gruver has been sending out updates to the listserv, if you missed this and still
want to get in on it, contact her at sgruver@cis.ctc.edu.

Firewalls – the CIS firewall has been kind of like a screen door so far. We’ve gone ahead and revamped
our internal network to have us feel more secure. Each Thursday morning there is a phased cut in of
changes. This is only the beginning of the firewall. At the same time we have been working to implement
windows 2000 on our servers. This is limited to develop servers so far.

Security Policy – all of us need to go through a security policy audit every three years. Bill Shaver is
working on some documents that may serve as templates for each of us.
Code Red/Nimda – these viruses and worms are coming faster and getting more sophisticated. Bill is
collecting information about what campuses are doing when they are struck with these viruses and what
steps are taken to protect the campus from future problems. This might be a good time to compile a ‘best
practices’ document. Bill wants some people to work on this with him since the campus environment looks
so different than the CIS environment. Would still like to have names of folks that would be interested in
taking this on. Steve Bradley, Dick Hol, Kay Harb, Peggy Keller, Ron McKinney, Chris Brown. Peggy
Keller gives kudos to Bill Shaver and Kevin Parr after their recent attacks. Dick Hol says Spokane was hit
very hard and it was a surprise to him since he thought they were much better protected. They had to go
back and forth between cleaning the servers and updating PC virus protection until they saw the effects
slowing down.

Contract and Vendor Issues
Deb Poarch and John Lowdon presenting

We are extremely passionate about colleges getting the best prices and best services. So when we go out
to bid we not only consider price but service levels.
Softwarehouse – there may be some customer service issues that still need to be addressed.

Dirk Kayser used to cover both corporate and education but now Derek Dawson will be doing all the
education sales. The contract is in effect for another year but it does not stop us from going out and
getting another contract.

A number of folks expressed problems getting response from SHI. For example, changes in personnel are
not reported very well.

Are there questions about the differences between Microsoft Campus Agreement 2.0 & 3.0? Not all
schools will have to buy the same add on products.

Dick Hol – suggests that we try to capture all the concerns about the campus agreement and forward
those to Shawn.

Antivirus – Softchoice is the vendor for Symantec. So far only Lake Washington has dealt with them. What
about McAfee? During contract negotiations with them, they were not willing to honor the price. By going
directly to Misty Hughes, Harley Moberg was able to beat the Symantec quote by a dollar. Choi Halladay
had the same experience by dealing direct. McAfee was not willing to give a consortium price. Dennis
Colgan wanted to know how we can get additional use contracts.

How about Logical – is everyone happy with them? It seems that they are learning how to do it.

Edge contract – what a waste of time! Their prices are outrageous. It is possible to go to the DIS contracts
to compare prices. In addition, with Edge and other vendors, it is always possible to ask the vendor for a
lower price.

Global Solutions and PrintInk are providing printing management for the entire campus. They will provide
maintenance, toner cartridges etc for a fixed per page cost. They would even come to the campus and do
a trade up program for existing printers to bring you to one level.

The goal is to have links on the CIS webpage to all contracts with follow on use language so that all
colleges may be able to benefit.

Couple of calls about a cabling contract – is there any interest in this?

Gateway – their contract expires next April. A comparison of all the different configurators showed that the
CIS price was the best. Consensus was to renew this contract.
Data for all three primary pc solutions: Dell - $2.8million, Micron $1.4million, Gateway $1.8 million for 2
quarter, $6.1million for 2000.
Have any colleges approached vendors for donations of equipment?

College Cost Share Collaboration – the Quest software situation was an interesting experience. It’s this
whole problem of trying to get everyone to make a single decision and then we can go out and get the
best price.

John Lowdon takes over –
For folks that purchased machines through the Logical contract. The quotes include six different levels of
“options” you can purchase when you buy the machine – but it should be placed under the existing
agreement. There is a huge difference in price and anyone that purchased options should be getting

Historically we have done three year deals – the advantage there is we can leverage volume, get an
additional 10%. Is there any reason we couldn’t get a contract with a third party for support? The
recommendation is to stay with HP. If we are going to get a contract with HP, we need to stay committed.
If we get the contract and a school withdraws, they will have to pay for opting out and other schools could
end up taking a hit when the contract discounts change as volume drops. We will have an email vote on
whether we want a three year contract. Room consensus seemed to indicate that we need to renew.

HP was asked if they would once again consider extending the support for the 9x7 machines. They were
willing to look at perhaps 6 months. We do have an RFP almost ready to go on the streets. There are not
a lot of vendors that will provide this support. There are about 4-5 vendors that might like to bid on this. A
couple of schools have experience with Innervue and are happy with them.

In general, we need to make sure that when individual schools are taking advantage of the follow on use
language when they write contracts.

Common College Forms
Harley Moberg presenting

Everyone of us fills in forms, is there some where we can put these? Everyone would welcome this.
Everyone would be able to use PDF forms. This could be a form that is simply printed and then filled in by
hand or could be filled in online and then printed.

Harley will pursue this with Jan Allison at the CIS.

Schedule 25
Carolyn Hershberger presenting

There are 13 colleges signed up and paying for the use of Schedule 25 and Resource 25. There are two
colleges wishing to opt out at this point. Several are also using just the Schedule 25 portion and not
Resource 25. When the first college drops out there will be a $400-500 increase to the rest… as more
drop out, the cost increases for those that are left.

Shift 4
Gary Sigmen presenting

WRQ Reflection version 9 is supposed to have the ability to have a serial to TCP/IP ability.

The touch-tone server is an NT4.0 box and it cannot be integrated into a Windows2000 active directory

The suggestion is to move the credit card payment option to the Bank of America. Perhaps those 5
colleges that are using the Lucent box and INI could go as one unit and have the INI rewritten to point to
the Bank of America solution. There are a lot of AVT touch-tone campuses, but not all of them are using
the touch-tone credit card.

CIS Development standards
Jack Hanson presenting
When software is developed to run on the web and interface with our HP3000, if we use JAVA we have to
note that future browsers will not have embedded JAVA and users will have to download that and install it.

Portal software – could be way too expensive for small and small medium schools. Suggest that some
schools might want to look into uPortal, which is in use by a number of colleges across the country. It is
not a complete package; it is instead a framework that can be used by colleges to develop a portal link to
their college information and applications. Accessing this is free; you simply download the product and set
it up for your college. It runs on both UNIX and NT based machines. Gary Sigmen, Dennis Colgan, Tom
Bates, Dick Arbak Frankie Schlender and Bob Billings would all be interested in looking at this.

SRN Degree Works
Bill Storms presenting

There have been a number of problems with SRN and getting response. Performance of the product has
been lacking. SRN has committed to attempt to resolve some of the customer service issues. Green River
has had SRN come in and taken a very careful look at how it is all set up. However, GR is still not
convinced that everything will work the way it is supposed to.

Bill Storms, Dick Hol and Carolyn Hershberger will have a conference call and then one with SRN and try
to resolve these issues. Nancy Petersen would like someone from CIS to join the conference calls. Walt
Marth would like to join in for the Seattle District as well.

In addition to the customer service issues that there have been, the real issue is that there are some
technical issues that need to be resolved. We need to have them demonstrate to us that they can get it
running at GR first and then we can see if it will work at the other campuses.

Angie Hancock presenting

Because there was a complete presentation on this product not too long ago, changes and new features
will be covered. Additionally, the new pricing structure will be discussed.

Primarily this is for non-credit programs, though they are beginning to look at the schedule portion for all
courses and online registration for distance learning courses.

Syncronex Update
Rich Henry presenting

We will be moving forward with the 5 pilot schools. (see handout)

SIM is an organization for CIO’s. There is a Seattle chapter and they meet on the third Thursday of each
month. The cost for each meeting is $75.

Portal Discussion
Panel of Jack Hanson, Rich Henry, Vic Portelese, Dick Hol

Dick – their portal project developed because of the data warehouse project. There are five or six
developers that meet monthly and discuss direction. They are taking a number of activities and trying to
move them together. One of the things that might happen, the college that develops it could then turn
around and sell the product to the other schools. The question of long-term maintenance becomes an
issue. By partnering with shared client services, colleges may be able to contract with SCS for
modification and support.

Vic – three objectives: create easy tool for our students, create closer college community with a common
interface, and three be able to put the front portal out there and if we change the back end, the end user
will not know that. We chose the Oracle portal running on Sun and used the Bridgeware to move the HP
data. The Taurus group is working with us to move our data. This has turned out to be about a $700,000
Rich – what we have heard so far is a moderate build it, and a complete buy it. At Bellevue, we are
working on a project that we call ibcc or internet Bellevue Community College where we will have the main
starting point for all users at the college. When we started this, we did not know if we wanted to write our
own or buy an off the shelf. When we put out an RFP we left it open ended. We are now focusing on
making this portal a framework for the user. They will be able to put their links on the page and access all
things they want from there. The first definition is that it is “role-based” so different frameworks will be
available based on what your role is. It is then user customizable from there. However, the role that a
person is in will define what add ons can be added to the page. The company we ended up with is called
CoreChange and their product is CorePort. They are the first portal vendor with integrated active directory.
They seem to be the right balance between big enough and not so expensive we can’t afford it. We are
looking at it to be around $100,000 project not including hardware.

Jack – clearly Shoreline is not anywhere near where the other schools are. Some of the key terms we, as
a group should keep in mind. First of all we need a framework. We need to keep in mind that we need to
provide services to students. The last few months has reminded me that we need to keep in mind that
whatever we do needs to be adaptable to future changes. We have a lot of little pieces here and there and
we are trying to bring them all together. We have downloaded software called uPortal that has all of what
we have talked about so far and will continue to be developed by some major universities. The individual
applications will still have to be plugged in or any new applications we might want to write. We are not very
far along. We are testing it in a Linux environment right now.

We have been through our periods where we have complained about CIS not being responsive and
having to go to one place to get our stuff done, so we went out and got third party vendors and tried to
integrate with our HP’s. We have not had that many successes when we have tried to do that. If we can
do more in-house development we will probably have more guaranteed outcomes.

Open Space
Distributed development – on the CIS website, there is a page now for some resources for shared
development. There are some guidelines. It’s not that CIS would development the guidelines and push
them out, but rather as a group we might develop some guidelines. JAVA and XML guidelines might be

Passing of banner from Russ Beard to Centralia

Adjourned 1:30PM

To top