Information Technology Planning Board

Summary

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

 

 

ITPB Members:  Kathryn Atchison, Christine Borgman, Jim Davis, Robin Garrell, Michael Goldstein, Bill Jepson, Patricia Keating, Kathleen Komar, Sam Morabito, Susan Parker (for Gary Strong), Marilyn Raphael, Janice Reiff, Alan Robinson, Art Toga

 

Guest: Steve Olsen

 

Support Staff:  Ross Bollens, Debbie Goldwater, Larry Loeher, Nick Reddingius, Margo Reveil, Jackie Reynolds, Mike Schilling, Libbie Stephenson, Kent Wada

 

Members absent: William J. Kaiser, David Kaplan, Warren Mori, Andrew Royer, Gary Strong, Christopher Waterman

 

 

Agenda Item 1:  Academic Year Planning/Update on ITPB/Introduction of New Members/Approval of Summary

 

Professor Christine Borgman opened the meeting by welcoming everyone to the new academic year of the ITPB and explaining the advisory role of the board as a joint Academic Senate/Vice Chancellor body chaired by a faculty member.  She then had all in attendance introduce themselves and welcomed new members to the board.

 

The summary from the July 16, 2008 meeting was approved.

 

Professor Borgman demonstrated the new ITPB Moodle site on the CCLE and noted the documents would be available to all board members.  Many of the documents will not be posted to the public ITPB web site, so she requested that ITPB members follow the instructions sent via e-mail and set up their accounts.

 

Issues for Academic Year 2008-09:

 

 

Agenda Item 2:  Budget Status Report

 

Steve Olsen, Vice Chancellor for Finance, Budget and Capital Programs gave a general overview of the state budget and noted that the state controller is forecasting $1.5 billion less in revenue in the first quarter of 2008-09 than anticipated.  This suggests that revenue will be strongly down in the fiscal year to follow.  The Governor has issued an executive order to increase the mid-year budget cuts to save $190 million, with UC targeted for a $33 million cut (approximately 1% of its operating budget).  At this point, the FY 2009-10 implications are uncertain, although the cut is expected to be larger next year with anticipated permanent downsizing.

 

VC Olsen said that this is only half of the problem.  UC expenditures are unmanageable in the short term.  The previous UCRP surplus has been depleted, and the Regents have endorsed the reestablishment of contributions to the plan.  Actuaries have recommended an 11% increase in contributions, but it is unlikely that the contribution increase will be more than 6 percent, with UC contributing 4 percent and employees contributing 2 percent.  Regents will make that decision at an upcoming meeting.

 

Health benefits are another area of concern.  UCLA received an inflationary block allocation to offset increases, which we will not receive this year.  So in addition to cost increases and no offset, the final cost will be sizeable.

 

Scott Waugh met with the deans the morning of Oct. 15, 2008 regarding the budget issues.  As part of their business plans, deans are being asked about their local IT operating levels. VP Olsen discussed infrastructure projects that were approved last year and how it is necessary to give high priority to projects of strategic importance.  He indicated that it would probably not be possible to guarantee the five-year plan, he said, and some assumptions will have to be revisited.  A re-examination of plans is essential in this fiscal environment.  The expenditures must support core mission activities and identification of activities that offer competitive differences.

 

Research dollars will likely decrease, as well.  Individual research support is already decreasing.  Much of the research infrastructure (specifically buildings) has been financed by debt.  This will have a large impact on budgetary resources.  Expenditures on regional data centers/future investments are important topics.  VP Olsen also noted that there is limited space available on this campus to build.

 

In the next year, there will be an intense focus on UC’s core mission, what that means, and how it will be addressed. 

 

VP Olsen also addressed the topic of other sources of revenue generation.  At system level, the Regents will consider raising student fees.  Academic programs have discretion to establish self-supporting degree programs.  This is an issue controlled by faculty.  Another issue is the resident/non-resident student body balance.  At this point, UCLA students are 91 percent California residents, while the University of Colorado, for example, has only 60 percent Colorado residents.  While UCLA does not need to go that far to increase revenue from out of state fees, increasing the student population to 15 percent out-of-state students would make a significant difference in tuition income.

 

 

 

Agenda Item 3:  Information Technology Strategic Planning Task Force overview

 

AVC Jim Davis, Chair of the IT Strategic Planning Task Force, discussed the relationship between ITPB and the recently formed IT Planning Task Force. The latter was formed to created a new UCLA IT Strategic Plan.  He noted that all meeting materials will be shared and that some members serve on both groups.  The Task Force agenda and proposed plan of action are included in the ITPB members’ materials. 

 

The 2001 Vision document, as well as other planning documents (e.g. CITI, FCET, CSG, other initiatives) will be used to create one inclusive, coherent document that will spell out the 2018 plan.  The outline for the plan was adapted from the University of Colorado’s plan.  The UCLA IT Strategic Plan will encompass vision, principles, strategies, tactics and initiatives for the next ten years.  At each step in the process, the Task Force will present their results to ITPB, other governance groups, and the Academic Senate.  The Task Force is soliciting feedback.

 

The first “assignment” for ITPB will be to review item III B (issues raised by Task Force members through individual discussion siwth Executive Committee and Deans) from the Task Force agenda to determine if there are other issues that should be included. 

 

Administrative Vice Chancellor Sam Morabito, Co-Chair of the Task Force, said that the Chancellor viewed the information technology component as supportive of the long-term academic plan.  He said that information technology cannot exist in isolation and that the next couple of years will be difficult.  Both the Strategic Planning Task Force and the ITPB will have to sharpen their core foci and understand what supports the “core” needs. During tough economic times, it will be necessary to determine what can be “patched together” and what can wait.

 

Agenda Item 4:  Data Management Planning

 

Christine Borgman, ITPB Chair, gave a brief report of the work done to date by the Data Management working group.

 

Funding organizations expect researchers to have data management plans. In current economic times, it is essential to be realistic about investment in cyberinfrastructure.  There are several questions that the campus must address, including:

 

 

Management of research and education data is a top priority for ITPB this year, as many issues remain to be considered.  The subcommittee should continue its work, and a website should be established that outlines rights, responsibilities, and best practices for faculty, students, researchers, and instructors. Gary Strong, University Librarian, now chairs the working group. Ann Pollack of the VC for Research office has been added as a member of that group. Reports and materials from 2007-08 meetings are posted on the ITPB website.

 

Sam Morabito reported on disaster recovery, which is another component of data management.  UCLA has out-of-state mainframe storage and some reciprocal hosting with Berkeley.  There are ten servers at Berkeley, but it is still a work in progress, with plans in place to get basic systems running.

 

It was suggested that David Ernst attend (or videoconference) the next ITPB to address some of these issues.

 

Agenda Item 5:  Policy for Protecting Personally Identifiable Information (PII) Introduction and Discussion

 

Policy 404 was written to address California State laws that mandate notification in cases of exposure.  A policy already exists regarding systems, however Policy 404 addresses individual responsibility.  The policy was drafted over the past year and is now being presented for formal review and discussion to ITPB.  In essence, the policy makes it clear that it is preferable not to store PII, but if it is necessary for a legitimate academic or business purpose, then the appropriate unit head must approve its use.  This approval cannot be delegated.

 

Discussion:  Board members found the background check portion of the policy troubling, especially with regard to faculty who handle PII data for research purposes., Most UCLA staff employees are fingerprinted and/or background checked prior to employment. Concerns were raised about how to maintain privacy while preserving UCLA’s integrity and public relations. A suggestion was made to have different policies for faculty and staff with respect to PII.

 

The question of IRB acting as an approval source was raised.  However, there are significant other issues that may make this inappropriate.

 

The PII issue requires further discussion and should remain on the agenda for the next meeting.  AVC Jim Davis made clear that there would be a difference between deployment and policy and the discussion today was the kind that is needed for determining how to retain the reason and intent of a proposed policy statement, i.e. background checks, but determine how to reasonably accomplish that intent in practice.  There would be need to be customized approaches to departments, with efforts to address administrative systems, as well as faculty research.

 

 

Agenda Item 6:  New Business

 

Dr. Borgman encouraged everyone to log in to the Moodle site.  Reports and articles of interest to ITPB will be posted there.

 

Dr. Borgman noted a lecture by Dr. David Clark, “The Internets We Did Not Build,” on Nov. 3, 2008 4:30 p.m., Haines Hall, Rm. 39, hosted by IPAM and the Department of Computer Science.

 

Meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM.