NAU IT Fee Proposal

NAU IT Fee Proposal Provost’s Academic Computing Advisory Committee Approved by the Committee September 22, 2003 Executive Summary This document describes the Provost’s Academic Computing Advisory Committee (PACAC) recommendation to implement a new Student Information Technology Fee. The committee believes that a fee is now needed to assure NAU continues to provide rich and exciting information age learning resources to students who increasingly expect a wide array of technologies in their higher education experience. A $4 per credit hour fee would generate approximately $1,500,000. The submitted report shows approximately $2,500,000 of direct student services the committee felt was appropriate to cover with an IT fee. Regardless of the actual amount of the fee, the report documents the need for an IT fee and the guidelines for administering such a fee. The following are new initiatives an IT fee could fund:  state of the art e-learning environments like VISTA, e-portfolios, or new portal channels;  computer mediated classrooms that directly support active learning;  support and products sufficient to transform a student’s personal computer into a viable NAU specific learning platform;  ubiquitous access for all students to searchable video library content, expanded help desk services, and statewide information learning resources;  high-end creativity tools and labs to give students opportunities to add computer animations, and other multimedia into their portfolios. The IT fee proposal has these key features:  $4 / credit hour,  does not replace course fees,  every dollar goes directly to student IT services,  students are involved in determining new and exciting value-added projects such as e-portfolios, VISTA, e-tutoring, or computer mediated classrooms. The IT fee supplements, but does not eliminate, existing IT state budgets. The IT fee helps recover some operational money, but does not remove the need for a healthy IT state budget to cover basic IT infrastructure costs. The PACAC committee is willing to exercise oversight responsibility for working with students to prioritize, calculate, and expend these funds. The full report establishes a basic philosophy and gives examples of how a fee would be assessed and used at NAU. The report, however, recognizes that more work, by a wider constituency, is needed before a final IT fee proposal can be fully implemented. NAU IT Fee Proposal 2 Overview The Provost’s Academic Computing Advisory Committee formed the Information Technology (IT) Fee Subcommittee to review a proposed IT student fee. The subcommittee was asked to explore the following: 1. The strategic need and justification for such a fee. 2. The relationship of course fees to any new IT fee. 3. The appropriate uses of a student-generated IT fee. 4. The variety of perspectives, among differing constituencies, regarding such a fee. The Need for an IT Fee Appendix A addresses some of the statistics regarding the strategic need for an IT fee at NAU. Twelve of our 17 peer institutions have already established a student fee to cover their increasing technology costs. Much has also been written in the past few years about the increasing need for students to be exposed to information technologies and for campuses to have a rich information technology infrastructure to help students in both curricular pursuits and in co-curricular activities that can lead to better information age skill development and job opportunities (Annadam, 1998; Clinton 1999; Motscnig-Pitrick & Holzinger 2002; Wellman & Phipps 2001; Young, 1997). Overall, more than 75% of public universities now resort to an IT fee to cover these increasingly important costs; in fact, the number of institutions adopting such fees continues to rise (Green, 2002). In short, Young’s (1997) view that “computing resources are as necessary as libraries and therefore should be rolled into tuition” seems to have lost ground as more and more universities face the reality that decreasing state revenues are unable to meet increasing student demand for IT services. Given that NAU’s library workstations are equivalent, by design, to open computer lab workstations, the library also faces the escalating costs due to student demands for IT services. Similar arguments exist for Distributed Learning Systems, Disability Support Services, the Learning Assistance Center or any service organization heavily involved in Information Technologies not funded through course fees. Course Fees Committee members extensively discussed the relationship of a course fee to any new IT fee. They concluded that, at best, an IT fee might subsidize, but not replace, course fees. A student IT fee will be a centrally managed fee; course fees are local to the department and are much easier to adjust as changes in the curriculum occur. A survey of Fall 2002 course fees indicated that over 1,000 sections had course fees in place ranging from $600 for the Arizona Regents’ University Master of Engineering courses to $3 for COM 382. The average course fee was $17, and fewer than half of the course fees seemed related to information technology. Course fees are well understood, well managed funding vehicles that are meeting existing departmental course needs. The committee thus recommends NAU IT Fee Proposal 3 keeping course fees but continuing to explore how to fund new departmental infrastructure needs such as enhanced classrooms through IT fee grant initiatives. The committee concluded that the student IT Fee might be used to subsidize existing course fees, as a way to eliminate barriers for some students in high cost programs (see Option 4 below). Support for this option, however, was weak. Appropriate Uses of the Fee Wellman & Phipps (2001) state that “supplemental fees are most appropriately used to pay for direct services where the client, whether students or others, can readily identify the benefits of the service” (p. 16). The committee agrees that a student IT fee needs to directly serve students, and worked on developing a list of appropriate and inappropriate uses of the fee (see Appendix D). Most examples supported student access (labs and library, ResNet, statewide) or services (disability support services, learning assistance center). Many items were not considered appropriate: faculty development, administrative computing systems, and campus wiring infrastructure were examples of inappropriate use of the IT Fee. The committee feels that appropriate uses of the proposed fee focuses primarily on supporting student co-curricular information technology services, which are not funded through course fees. Such a fee is not a replacement for university infrastructure investments; infrastructure costs need to be fully funded by the state budget. The fee, instead, assures “a stable and recurring source of revenue” (Wellman & Phipps, 2001, p. 16), which builds on the underlying institution’s infrastructure. The committee explored a number of existing services (see Appendix C for one example) that might otherwise continue to erode during Arizona’s current economic downturn. The committee felt it was also necessary, based on past growth of both quantity and quality of student demand, not only to protect existing services, but to anticipate new services that will be necessary as NAU’s student information technology services continue to evolve. For this reason, the committee recommends setting part of the fee aside each year to fund new initiatives prioritized by a subcommittee with both student and service provider representatives. A Variety of Perspectives The final charge by the Provost’s Academic Computing Committee was to research the variety of perspectives among differing constituencies regarding an IT fee. Unfortunately, time did not permit the subcommittee to conduct interviews, hold forums, or send out a student survey. Each of these avenues may be explored in the future. The main committee, however, created the subcommittee to include a broad representation of constituents given the time constraints. Appendix E lists the subcommittee members. NAU IT Fee Proposal 4 IT Fee Options The subcommittee considered four IT Fee options. The Provost’s Academic Computing Committee requested the subcommittee to consider the first option, no fee at all, simply to illustrate the problem with staying where we are today. Option 1: No Fee Without a fee, student Information Technology services will continue to decline at NAU at the same time that demand is peaking for key services. The recent changes in how the university views email and administrative systems—as well as NAU’s continued growth in work force development and use of web technologies to deliver courses and even academic programs—means that every student needs to use the full spectrum of library, course, administrative, and co-curricular information technology services. Many of our students have very weak computer skills when they enter NAU. The services used by our students must be of the most reliable and highest quality with sufficient staffing to assure student success. At the same time, due to our increasingly complex network and computing environments, many students also need direct assistance 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Some students also need services from the Learning Assistance Center or Disability Support Services to assure they will be successful in using the now mandatory technologies at NAU. Recent budget cuts have eroded IT services just at the time when these services are becoming increasingly critical for student success. The Academic Computing group is currently short four full-time staff. The Learning Assistance Center is not prepared to provide the level of tutoring that our increased expectations on student computer literacy demand, and Disability Support services does not yet have sufficient funding to maintain the licenses for software they’ve identified as necessary to meet campus needs. To meet budget reductions, Academic Computing had to cut lab hours just when the university added a new winter session, when more classes than ever are on-line, and when budget cuts in other areas are placing greater demand on central labs. The library, while it has not cut hours, has also had to make difficult budget cuts that ultimately impact students while increasing statewide enrollments continue to increase demand for information technology services. Option 2: Basic Fee The basic fee would cover core IT services that students use while attending NAU. Two tables are shown below. Table 1 depicts examples of existing services that are candidates for funding through an IT fee. Table 2 provides examples of new initiatives that would otherwise languish. Both tables are just examples; a final budget would need to be decided in the actual budget year by a committee composed of appropriate stakeholders and student representatives. NAU IT Fee Proposal Table 1 Examples of existing services with funding restored to appropriate levels Service ResNet Open Labs Disability Services Learning Assist. Center Statewide Programs WebCT Kiosks Student Email Student Modem Pool Library services Total Proposed Level $300,000 $400,000 $48,000 $75,000 $400,000 $165,000 $25,000 $86,400 $100,000 $300,000 $1,899,400 Note New Employee Open south lab 24hours Assistive software New Employee ITS + DLS costs New Employee Slight expansion New Employee local + statewide Public workstations, etc. 5 Table 2 depicts examples of new initiatives that might be candidates for funding through an IT fee. Table 2 Examples of new initiatives (perhaps determined through an RFP process) Service Microsoft Campus Select Agreement for Students Expanded Academic Computing Help Desk Classroom technologies Expanded Wireless and PDA Access Increased Internet Bandwidth Vista Upgrade Electronic Portfolios Video on demand (pilot) Total Proposed Level $15,000 $39,700 $200,000 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $80,000 $45,000 $679,700 Note Student personal use New Employee Modernize classrooms WAP + access points Student demand WebCT replacement New system Deliver library/other content to students Until the IT fee is actually approved, the subcommittee could not solicit full participation from all constituents in developing the above tables. The tables, therefore, simply represent the type of costs that an implementation team could develop, in fairly short order, in order to calculate the amount of money the fee must generate. Other examples discussed include subsidizing software purchases, such as statistical packages, through NAU IT Fee Proposal 6 group purchasing plans, on-line advising and support assistance, and student channels for the new campus portal. It is important to note that the funding suggested above does not seek to replace the entire state budget for Academic Computing, Statewide Programs, or other agencies seeking funding. Costs not included in the basic IT fee would remain as infrastructure and overhead costs covered by the state budget. The IT fee would allow the university to reinvest existing state budgets back into the state IT infrastructure. In addition to firming up the hidden infrastructure costs, such as the campus backbone and server environments, the IT Fee makes more state money available to fund faculty computer replacement or enhance faculty development efforts, which is greatly needed across campus. In the example above, the annual total comes to $2,579,100. During the fall 2002 semester, NAU’s 19,907 head count generated 17,189 FTE. The committee agreed it was unfair to charge part-time students the same as full-time, so the estimated IT Fee necessary to cover the proposed revenues would be $2,579,100/17,189 = $150.04 per full-time student per year. The committee recommends using use course credits as the mechanism for assessing the IT student fee rather than a flat fee each semester. Appendix B discusses this calculation. Option 3: Basic Fee with Separate ResNet Fee The subcommittee recognized ResNet as a cost that might be broken into a separate IT fee. The subcommittee also discussed the possibility of creating separate IT fees for other services, but there are many problems with this type of granular approach. With the exception of a separate ResNet fee, the practice is not common in literature or at other institutions. Separate fees often create barriers to access that a university is wise to avoid. To implement this option would require meetings with Residence Life, support by upper administration and a recalculation of the fees above with the $300,000 borne only by those who lived in the Residence Halls. In the example above, this would reduce the annual fee for all students from $150.04 to $130.58 but then increase the costs for residence life students to $188.49 per year. It is important to note, however, that while calculating the basic fee in the option 2, no cost was included for the lab servers and other infrastructures that students use to gain network access to the university. Their absence implies that the state budget is covering costs such as student use of current network bandwidth. Breaking out specific student services to charge against a separate fee is always somewhat arbitrary; ResNet remains an easy target because it seems like a service easily attributed to a specific student population. Another view, however, is that all students have network needs and ResNet students are no more likely to use a statewide lab than a statewide student is likely to use ResNet. In short, this view states that all students need ubiquitous access to NAU’s NAU IT Fee Proposal networks, and, on balance, the basic fee proposal distributes these access fees fairly without considering ResNet as a unique population. Option 4: Basic Fee with Course Fees Subsidized 7 As stated above, separate fees are potential barriers for access to information technologies that have an additional fee. A single fee is thus more liberating by providing everyone equal access to all available services. Course fees, the subcommittee agreed, should remain under the control of the colleges and departments. College and departmental costs, however, are also rising. At some point, as course fees increase, certain courses or degrees may become high enough in cost to pose a problem for students in calculating their financial aid. High course fees are also subject to review by external oversight and funding may not fully cover future needs. The subcommittee therefore discussed using the IT fee to subsidize course fees. Feedback from various deans and staff working with course fee budgets made it very clear that control of this money would need to remain firmly with the subsidized college or department. Implementing this option would require a memorandum of understanding with each subsidized department or college. Recommendation The subcommittee recommends that the Provost’s Academic Computing Advisory Council adopt option 2 (Basic Fee) above with the provision that the subcommittee spend more time identifying the actual budget to take forward as an ABOR action item. The subcommittee further recommends that the Provost’s Academic Computing Advisory Council have oversight responsibility for expending these funds. The Provost’s Academic Computing Advisory Council may also need to establish some rules and procedures for funding new initiatives with the money raised for new initiatives. NAU IT Fee Proposal 8 References Anandam, K. (1998). A Call for Action. In Kamala Anandam (Ed.), Integrating Technology on Campus: Human Sensibilities and Technical Possibilities. (Vol. XXXVI No 1, pp. 89-90). San Franscisco: Jossey-Bas Inc. Clinton, W. J. (1999). Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the Use of Information Technology to Improve Our Society. Retrieved April 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ache.nche.edu/headline/122799head1.htm Green, K. C. (2002). Campus Computing 2002. Encino, CA. Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Holzinger, A. (2002). Student-Centered Teaching Meets New Media: Concept and Case Study (2002). Journal of International Forum of Educational Technology & Society 5(4). Retrieved December 30, 2002 from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_4_2002/renate.html Wellman, J. V., & Phipps, R. A (2001). Funding the “infostructure”: A guide to financing technology infrastructure in higher education. Lumina Foundation for Education: New Agenda Series 3(2). (ERIC No. ED 451 817) Young, J. R. (1997). More Colleges Charge Students a Separate Fee for Technology. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 43. Retrieved March 2000 from Lexis-Nexis online database. NAU IT Fee Proposal 9 Appendix A IT Fee Justification Over the last 25 years, universities have struggled to keep up with the growing demands of information technology. A whole host of requirements including IT infrastructure, computing equipment, support services, administrative systems, and network connectivity, have continued to increase as a percentage of total university revenues. Without taking the proper steps to increase revenue to insure our students are provided with state-of-the-art IT facilities, equipment, and services, NAU will not be able to keep pace with the escalating needs and expectations of our students and remain competitive with peer institutions. The next two charts present details of the increasing costs of supplying IT support to NAU (charts below are based on IT expenses for NAU’s central IT unit [Information Technology Services] only vs. state budget). Central IT Expense as a Percent of the Total State Budget for Last Decade 10.00% 9.00% % 8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Fiscal Year CONTACT: Fred Estrella, (928) 523-9998, Fred.Estrella@nau.edu NAU IT Fee Proposal 10 Central IT Expense for Last Decade $16,000,000 $14,000,000 IT Expenses $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Fiscal Year Providing ubiquitous IT services has become a growing expectation of our students. Whether they are living on-campus in residence halls, or off-campus in apartments, students want access to systems and services to conduct both their academic pursuits and perform administrative tasks at any time. Some other critical services are detailed below. Email is the primary means of communications between a student and the NAU administrative offices. Professors are using email more and more to communicate with students about their academic work. All students at NAU receive an NAU email account when they are admitted and this email account will soon become the official method of communications between NAU and the student. The chart below shows the increase in the numbers of email accounts at NAU over the last ten years. NAU Email growth from 1992 - 2002 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Student Email Accounts Employee Email Accounts NAU IT Fee Proposal 11 Back in 1996-1997, every residence hall room at NAU was wired with an Ethernet port(s) so that students could have high speed network access in their room. This feature has become a must for any college student living in a residence hall. The increasing numbers showed in the chart below clearly illustrates that NAU students are taking advantage of this service. Nearly 90% of NAU’s residence hall students have a computer connected to our resident hall network (Resnet). Resnet Participation 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 94 1996 300 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1185 2411 2625 Resnet Participation 3258 4185 The increased use on Resnet has also resulted in growing demands on NAU’s Internet bandwidth. Not only do students want to access NAU’s network resources, like the Library or the course registration webpage, they want to surf the Internet for both academic and personal use. The chart below shows the astonishing growth of Internet bandwidth at NAU over the last decade. NAU Internet Bandwith History 70 60 50 40 Mbps 30 20 10 0 Bandwidth Ja n M -92 ay Se -92 pJa 9 2 n M -93 ay Se 93 pJa 9 3 n M -94 ay Se -94 pJa 9 4 n M -95 ay Se 95 pJa 9 5 n M -96 ay Se -96 pJa 9 6 n M -97 ay Se 97 pJa 9 7 n M -98 ay Se -98 pJa 9 8 n M -99 ay Se 99 pJa 9 9 n M -00 ay Se -00 pJa 0 0 n M -01 ay Se -01 pJa 0 1 n02 Jan-92 0.064 Jan-94 1.15 Nov-96 1.54 Jan-99 3.08 Aug-99 6.16 Dec-99 9.2 Apr-00 10.7 Date Aug-00 15 Jan-01 20 Apr-01 24 Aug-01 30 Sep-01 50 Apr-02 60 NAU IT Fee Proposal 12 These increasing uses of IT services are not unique to NAU. The next chart provides some national statistics to show that IT is being used more and more in instruction across all universities in the U.S. 1 Rising Use of Technology in Instruction (% of classes in public univ. that use:) 75 65 55 % 45 35 25 15 1997 1998 1999 2000 Years 2001 Webpage for Course Materials & Resources Email Presentation Handouts Internet Resources How have other universities coped? The following chart chronicles the growing trend across the nation to charge a student IT fee to keep up with the increased cost of IT. 1 % of Public Universities Requiring an IT Fee 80 75 70 65 % 60 55 50 45 40 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Years 1 Data for both slides on this page taken from the Kenneth C. Green’s Annual Campus Computing Survey. Survey data is submitted by nearly 600 institutions across the U.S. NAU IT Fee Proposal To further illustrate the point about other universities charging an IT fee, the following information shows that a majority of NAU’s peer institutions charge an IT fee: IT Fees at NAU’s Peer Institutions Institution IT Fee Amount (fall 2002) 13 Ball State $260/yr Univ. Tech Fee & $100/yr Resident Hall Tech Fee Bowling Green Tech Fee part of res hall room rate $92/sem CSU, Fresno None specified George Mason $42/sem all students; $125/sem res hall for network, cable, local phone Miami U. $100/sem Resident Student & $18/sem non-resident Oakland U. None specified Ohio U. Tech fees by college, range $60 to $125 Old Dominion None specified (Part of comprehensive tuition fee) Central Florida None specified Delaware None specified College Equip & Tech Fee, range $50 to $250/sem Minnesota Computer Network Access Fee, range $25.80 to $77.40/sem Full Computer Lab Access, $61.80/sem Montana $6/credit hr/sem U. Nevada, Las Vegas $4/credit hr/sem U. Nevada, Reno $4/credit hr/sem North Dakota $50/sem full-time students; $4.17/credit hr part-time Vermont None specified Wyoming $20/semester The information above clearly illustrates that IT expenditures are exploding on campus as we enter the 21st century -- the age of information and knowledge. Other public universities (nearly 75% in 2002) have taken steps to keep pace with these expenses by charging a student IT fee. Like these other universities, the committee agrees that an IT fee is needed to help keep our campus technically sound, our instruction first rate, and our students more competitive after graduation. NAU IT Fee Proposal 14 Appendix B IT Fee Calculations The following is a summary the subcommittee’s recommendation for calculating fees. The committee felt that headcount was not an appropriate unit for determining fees. The best measure that the committee defined was course load with 12 credit hours considered as the maximum for assessing a fee regardless of the number of units taken beyond 12 hours. The subcommittee understands there may be better ways to actually implement such a fee based on existing administrative software capabilities, but the hope would be to establish a sliding fee with the following features:   Anything over 12 credit hours would be assessed as a single flat fee; Up to 12 credit hours the fee would proportionally assigned. The calculation itself can be computed by noting the following: FT * Fee + PT*(avg_credit_hr/12)*Fee = Amount_needed For example, using numbers from Fall 2002, we know: Amount_needed = $2,579,100 annual amount needed FT = 13,246 full-time students PT = 6,661 part-time students avg_credit_hr ≈ 7.1 average annual part time credit hours (assumed from PAIR FTE calculation) Yields: 13,246 * X + 6,661*(7.1/12)*X = 2,579,100 Solving for X yields the following maximum fee: X = 2,579,100/(13,246+6,661*(7.1/12)) ≈ $150.06 More generally: X = Amount_needed / (FT + (PT*(avg_credit_hr/12)) Where students who enrolled in less than 12 credit hours (num_hours) would be charged: num_hours / 12 * X The FT, PT, and avg_credit_hrs values shown above may need to be adjusted to account for Spring, Summer, and Winter session enrollments. The suggested calculations shown here are simply illustrative and not definitive. NAU IT Fee Proposal 15 Appendix C Academic Computing IT Fee Candidates The following table represents “vertical” costs associated incurred by the Academic Computing group in delivering direct student services. The category “other” below is the overhead costs for running the group (training, administrative staff, and infrastructure work not related directly to these costs). A more complete breakdown of all these summary costs is available as a separate spreadsheet. The subcommittee recommends anyone expecting to use funds from the student IT Fee submit this sort of budget breakdown. Academic Computing Vertical Expenses FY03 December 3, 2002 Other Academic Units' Computing Vertical Total Direct Vertical Service Costs Costs Vertical Costs ResNet $164,604 $91,800 $256,404 ResLabs $241,251 $241,251 LRC $175,918 $175,918 North LAC $35,641 $35,641 Dept Labs $10,952 $10,952 Disability Support Services $11,313 $1,315 $12,628 Kiosks $22,815 $22,815 Statewide $126,111 $126,111 Faculty Evaluations $21,584 $21,584 Statistics $21,584 $21,269 $42,853 Postmaster $32,376 $32,376 Student Email $43,168 $43,168 Employee Email $43,168 $43,168 WebCT $68,684 $45,000 $113,684 Electronic Portfolios $29,436 $29,436 Eval'a Jack $29,436 $29,436 Scorer $19,624 $19,624 Other $453,490 $32,284 $485,774 Total $1,551,155 $191,668 $1,742,823 NAU IT Fee Proposal 16 Appendix D Appropriate Uses of the IT Fee There was a lot of discussion about what is, and what is not, appropriate to charge against a student IT fee. No one objected to the Wellman and Phipps’ (2001) recommendation that “supplemental fees are most appropriately used to pay for direct services where the client, whether students or others, can readily identify the benefits of the service” (p. 16). However, it seemed clear that there would always be grey areas, which simply means that developing a final budget for the fee needs to follow evolving guidelines decided upon by the committee responsible for allocating the funds. Examples of items currently considered a direct benefit to students:  Library workstations  Statewide lab sites  ITS Open labs  ResNet  Student wireless access  Student bandwidth  Academic Computing Help Desk  Learning Assistance Center software assistance  Disability Support Services ubiquitous access program  Statewide network infrastructure directly used by students  Statewide modems  Student servers (email server, Z space, WebCT server)  Electronic Portfolios  Expanded software licenses (server based or for use at home)  Ubiquitous access to web-based services (calendaring, portals, chat areas, etc.)  Laptop loaners for students Examples of items that would currently need more discussion:  Campus portal system  Video over IP/ video conferencing initiatives Examples of items currently considered not appropriate:  Faculty development initiatives  Administrative computing systems  Campus building wiring  Course-fee covered department computer labs NAU IT Fee Proposal 17 Appendix E IT Fee Subcommittee Members Chair: John Campbell Members: Karen Appleby Claudia Bakula Ryan Ewing Gary Fetter Thomas Hastain Allan Hilchie Gerry Hughes Marc Lord Barry Lutz Georgia Michalicek Brian Ward Karen.Appleby@NAU.EDU Claudia.Bakula@NAU.EDU ree6@DANA.UCC.NAU.EDU Gary.Fetter@NAU.EDU Thomas.Hastain@NAU.EDU Allan.Hilchie@NAU.EDU Gerald.Hughes@NAU.EDU Marc.Lord@NAU.EDU Barry.Lutz@NAU.EDU Georgia.Michalicek@NAU.EDU Brian.Ward@NAU.EDU Provost’s Office Library Student ITS Student CBA SBS Statewide Physics/Astronomy ITS Residence Life John.Campbell@NAU.EDU ITS Ex-officio: Fred Estrella John Hagood Fred.Estrella@NAU.EDU John.Hagood@NAU.EDU CITO PACAC Chair