Skip to content
  • Print


Office of the President
University of the Pacific
3601 Pacific Avenue
Stockton, CA 95211

November 19, 2009

ISPC Meeting Minutes

November 19, 2009

Taylor Room

Call to Order: 1:05 p.m.

Present: Bergstrom, Brodnick, Denney, Fox, Frederick, Gilbertson, Johnson, Jacobson

Not Present: Griffen, Hetrick, LeGreco, Yelpaala, ASUOP Representative

Guests: Scott Christensen, Rob Henderson, Peggy Kay

Minutes: Due to a partial quorum the minutes from the November 5th meeting could not be approved.

Draft List of FY11 Budget:
The FY11 budget discussion is for information only due to a partial quorum. Rob summarized the planning cycle for the next year to 2015. Once enrollment is reviewed a census is taken in October and next year’s enrollment targets are projected to create budgets. IPC then prioritizes the needs of the divisions. ISPC prioritizes IT issues and prepares a recommendation to IPC. ISPC will present recommendations to IPC on December 8th. In March a consolidated budget recommendation is endorsed by IPC and forwarded to the President for consideration. The funds are distributed at the beginning of the next fiscal year. ISPC’s consolidated list with detail will be presented to IPC. ISPC’s strategic plan was the framework used to determine the priorities. Expanding the space on March Lane was removed from the list because CPCE will be using the space, and the amount of space was small in relation to other issues. The total request is now $1.9M. Columns have been added for OIT’s and ISPC’s priorities. Scott is working on TEC’s priorities. The list has been placed on the ISPC channel through insidePacific and the project codes are linked to descriptive paragraphs. The consolidated list corresponds with the priority list by the OIT/CIO Project Priority Code. The consolidated list will be expanded with descriptions when presented to IPC and the transmittal letter will contain a brief format of the priorities. The group discussed requesting mandatory items, and how document imaging/management could be funded if it is used institutionally. These points will be placed in the transmittal letter. The list that will be presented shows budget requests for FY11 – FY15 for a better sense of planning. The group discussed the recommended sequence of the priorities. Peggy explained why reporting staff is listed in both Operational Sustainability and Business Intelligence due to risk. The Advancement Developer would support the functionality of developing the program from the Advancement assessment. The group agreed that Advancement Reporting items (945) should be set as a separate mandatory priority. Peggy explained that Argos would be part of the Analytic Reporting Staff and Tool, and if consensus to use the tool is reached the figures will be changed. Many departments could benefit from Operational Data Storage. Cognos and Argos are the two reporting tools that will be evaluated for ODS.

The group discussed the relation and differences between ISPC’s and OIT’s priorities and the sequence that they should be listed in. ISPC agreed that Operational Sustainability should be listed as the first priority. Board required Advancement Reporting should be listed next and Business Intelligence should follow. Larry suggested that Risk Mitigation should be the next priority. If requesting the tool for disaster recovery and continuous availability causes all of the priorities to exceed $2M then Larry will remove staff overtime. OIT overtime is currently funded out of soft money and that creates a risk due to the uncertainty over funding from using soft money. The disaster recovery and continuous availability tool would keep technology functioning if anything were to happen. Changes have been made to the network using an alternative site, but OIT is now looking at the applications that are used and the quality level during a disaster. At this time the estimated time of recovery is ten days. This priority is in the last stage of funding. Stockton and Sacramento campuses loose power throughout the year and this could help. The group discussed the importance of Classroom Technology and the possibility of it being listed before Risk Mitigation. Faculty may say that continuous availability would be more important than classroom technology if they were aware of a ten-day recovery time. Scott explained that faculty would not have a way to teach if a disaster were to happen because the lack of classroom technology. The group decided that Video Support should be listed after Classroom Technology or Risk Mitigation and Enterprise Content Management should be listed last. Peggy explained why Enterprise Content Management is also important. There would be an increase in space, and document imaging integration with Banner would be a complete package for student application processing time. Document Imaging would help many departments across campuses. A reallocate strategy between departments could be considered for funding. The Enterprise Business Partners are looking into the operational needs of document management.

The transmittal letter will be drafted and the order of the priorities will be revised. The final review of the FY11 will be discussed at the next meeting.

Adjourned: 2:41 p.m.

The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 3 at 1:00 p.m. in the Library Community Room.