Navigation
Search

JPBC Minutes: May 16, 2019

Time & Location: 8:30 – 10:30 a.m., 220 Seymour 

Attendees

Voting Members

  • Sondra Aman
  • Steven Breslawski
  • Davida Bloom
  • Frances Dearing
  • Scott Haines
  • Tom Hernandez
  • Katy Heyning
  • Debbie Jacob
  • Sara Kelly
  • Kadathur Lakshmanan
  • Brooke Leddon
  • Jose Maliekal
  • Dave Mihalyov
  • Cherise Oakley
  • Kathy Peterson
  • Summer Reiner
  • Susan Stites-Doe
  • Katy Wilson

Non-Voting Members

  • Denise Copelton: Co-Chair
  • Karen Riotto
  • Melissa Wight
  • Jim Zollweg

Guests

  • Larry Brien
  • Steve Cook
  • Dawn Footer
  • Frank Mancini
  • Brad Menear
  • Ann Pearlman
  • Kevin Rice

Regrets

Voting Members

  • Mike Andriatch
  • Teresa Major
  • Jay West

Non-Voting Members 

  • President Macpherson
  • Crystal Hallenbeck
  • Jim Wall: Co-Chair

The meeting was called to order at 8:34am

Approval of the Minutes

Dr. Copelton asked the committee to review the minutes from the May 2, 2019 meeting. With no corrections, Mr. Haines motioned the minutes to be approved, Dr. Peterson seconded the motion, and all present voting members were in favor, except there was one abstention. Therefore, the minutes were approved. 

Announcements

Dr. Copelton made the following announcements:

  • The meeting minutes from our last meeting are not yet available. They will be available at our next meeting.
  • Next week’s meeting will be our last meeting for this academic year. The agenda will have the following items:
    • Budget Model Presentation
    • Review and endorse the Call Letters for the Goal Group presentations and Budget
      Prioritizations requests. Dr. Copelton stated that we would be incorporating an
      assessment piece into the presentation and into the work of the committee next year. In
      addition, she has asked the goal group leaders to identify areas within their goals that can
      be benchmarked. This will allow members to review the assessment data to see how well
      the goal groups are meeting those benchmarks.

Task Force Presentations

Dr. Copelton reminded committee members that these task force groups were developed based on the committee’s recommendation last year when multiple investment fund requests were submitted for passenger vans and for tech-enhanced classrooms. Members felt since there were multiple requests, these needs were campus-wide and needed to be reviewed. Today we will be having presentations from the task force groups on what they have found regarding these needs.

Campus Fleet

Presented by Larry Brien, Assistant Director of Physical Plant Services

Note: The presentation is available on Blackboard. 

The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred during the presentation:

  • The suggestion was made to share the graph that details the peak times for rentals with the
    individuals/departments that regularly request rentals. This way, if activities could be moved slightly, they would know what dates they would have a better opportunity for a rental. 
  • The question was raised about the purpose for which the vehicles are utilized. Mr. Brien stated that the some vehicles are used by Athletics for recruitment purposes, other times vehicles are used by staff for conferences or travels. Dr. Peterson added that nursing utilizes a van for two weeks in June for the visitors that come from Costa Rica.
  • The question was raised regarding if the two vans that were discussed are for campus use or just for Athletics. Mr. Brien stated that Athletics added two vans to their fleet of vehicles in January, therefore freeing up the two vans that Facilities rents out to have more availability for campus rentals.
  • The question was raised if graduate students are allowed to rent out the vehicles, as the cost of the rental would be less than the total reimbursement amount paid out to graduate students for travel due to research. Mr. Brien stated that graduate students are allowed to rent out the vehicles; they would just have to follow the guidelines listed on the webpage.
  • The question was raised if all individuals who rent the vehicle are required to have a License Event Notification Service (LENS) check. Mr. Brien stated that yes, all individual are required to have a LENS check and a LENS check is review through the DMV to tell us if you have lost your license or had any other driving issues.
  • The question was raised regarding the van certification and if it is needed every year. Mr. Brien stated that the training is done through Environment, Health and Safety. There is an initial training and then he believes a recertification every three years.
  • The question was raised regarding what other options are available to campus if the vans are not available to be rented. Mr. Brien stated that he is working with Mr. Wall and they are reviewing what needs to be done with the fleet. As far as Enterprise rentals, there is not much availability and sometimes the closest available van is in Ohio. Mr. Haines added that the lack of availability of the 15-passenger vans could be due to all of the recent lawsuits in the past decades due to the rollovers.
  • The question was raised if the addition of the two vans to Athletics’ fleet in January is
    adequately meeting Athletics needs. Mr. Brien stated that it appears to be at this time, but it
    would be year before we know the full effect.
  • The question was raised about what the difference is between a people mover and a bus. Dr. Wilson stated the people movers are like a mini bus and have the structural safety for rollovers but are not as expensive as a coach bus.
  • Clarification was requested regarding the two vehicles that were acquired by Athletics and if those vehicles were vans or people movers. Dr. Wilson stated that they were 15-passenger vans. This purchase was done to help the smaller teams travel and reduce the cost of coach bus rentals.
  • The question was raised when Athletics uses a Facilities van, do they pay for the rental. Mr.
    Brien stated that Athletics does pay for the rental.
  • The question was raised about the vans that Athletics acquired and if other departments could use them when Athletics is not using them. Mr. Brien stated with their scheduling, it is difficult for other departments to utilize those vehicles. Mr. Haines added that sometimes games are cancelled and then rescheduled; therefore, it would be difficult for them to rent the vehicle to another department knowing that they might need it.
  • The question was raised about how the rental is paid for. Mr. Brien stated that it is journal
    transfer from one account to another. Dr. Reiner asked how a student would pay for the rental. Mr. Brien stated that since Facilities bills departments, a student would have to be sponsored by a department in order to rent a vehicle. Ms. Footer added that students are able to go to BSG, receive a reduced rental rate and BSG would sponsor the rental.
  • The question was raised regarding the maintenance of vehicles and the methods used to charge the departments who are the primary owners of the vehicles. Mr. Brien stated that they bill the department for parts and labor. They charge a flat rate and it is based on the time it takes to complete the job.
  • Committee members discussed how to proceed with this information. It was determined that with the purchase of the vans for Athletics, it has eliminated the Investment Fund requests for departmental vans. At this point, it is up to the fleet team to determine if the inventory for the college is at the right capacity or if we need to remove or add some vehicles. They will also determine what other options the college has for renting vehicles as needed. This will be presented to the committee for recommendations. It was stated that there have been difficulties in utilizing the school district buses for transportation and other companies have been utilized. This is just mentioned to keep in mind when determining options.

Tech-Enhanced Classrooms with Video Capabilities

Presented by Ms. Ann Giralico Pearlman, Senior Instructional Design Specialist & Mr. Frank Mancini, Assistant Director of Academic Technology

Note: The presentation is available on Blackboard. 

The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred during the presentation:

  • The concern was raised that the first step that needs to be completed is to conduct a technology inventory of each classroom and create a database on this inventory with a scale of zero to four using zero as meaning there is no technology. Then we could move forward more efficiently with addressing this need.
  • The concern was raised that we need to know the total cost for the updates, including costs like asbestos removal, painting, cabling, wiring, etc. Ms. Giralico Pearlman stated that this was good information to have, so that the next presentation can be more informative.
  • The concern was raised that we need to ensure that we have the correct operating systems in place to support all of this technology in the classrooms.
  • The suggestion was made that the light board could be done while waiting for the classroom inventory to be completed. This would be beneficial for both students and faculty. The concern regarding this would be to make sure we have the right space and technology support for this device.
  • The suggestion was made to include looking at the classroom style when inventorying classroom technology. There are many lecture style classrooms and not enough interactive style.
  • Mr. Mancini stated he understands and agrees with the concerns, but the proposal was to help update some classrooms for now so that we can be more attractive to students and reduce the frustration of faculty.
  • The suggestion was made to make this a priority of Goal One and start setting aside a certain amount of money so that we can accomplish portions of the project each year depending on the amount of funding that can be set aside each fiscal year.
  • The suggestion was made that the rooms that are currently equipped in Tuttle, Liberal Arts and Cooper should be examined as to which classes those rooms are utilized for; is the technology used for those classes; are they available to be reserved for a one-time use class event; and determine who is interested in using this technology and has not been able to utilize it. This would provide us with the number of classrooms equipped with technology, what they are being used for now, and the number of times they were not able to be booked because they were already in use. Mr. Mancini stated that unfortunately there is not any hard data on who has requested to use the rooms and been denied. He can validate that the four rooms in Liberal Arts are not being used in the way that they should because the faculty that are housed in that building use the rooms and do not use the technology. There are problems when a faculty member request a certain room for the technology needs of a class and they are denied because the class size is not large enough to fill the room. He stated for the one-time use requests, some conference rooms have been suggested, but they do not necessary accommodate a classroom. Dr. Copelton stated that this is more of a space utilization issue and should be brought to the space utilization committee for review.
  • The suggestion was made to include a column on the classroom sheet that is distributed around departments so that Chairs can better match classrooms with technology needs.
  • The suggestion was made to somehow reward the faculty that are doing innovative things with technology in their classrooms, so they should be acknowledged as first movers to help others achieve their technology needs.
  • The statement was made that some of these items on the proposal would assist students in
    preparing and completing Skype interviews with prospective employers as many employers are foregoing the face-to-face interview and are completing technology-assisted interviews.
  • The concern was raised that the desks and walkways in the classroom do not accommodate
    students’ needs when it comes to the technology that they bring to class. Some students have had their laptops knocked off the desk with someone walking by because the laptop is positioned over to the side so that they can fill out paperwork. It was encouraged that during the inventory of classrooms, the pedestrian needs are reviewed as well.
  • The concern was raised that the academic professional video production services and support-personnel section of the proposal is an area that needs to be addressed and cannot wait for a classroom inventory. With the rapid growth of online and hybrid programs, this item is essential so that we are successful in that area. In addition, there have been many missed opportunities for recording lectures. This is a need that cannot be fulfilled by the Office of College Communications, as there are difficulties in completing the non-academic requests. This individual would solely be for the academic needs. It was stated that this part of the proposal is feasible with the technology structure that we have.
  • The concern was brought up that in the past, the college had the Learning Environment
    Enhancement Program (LEEP) Committee and had a large funding commitment from the
    campus and other sources of funding, which helped the improvement of a large number of rooms at a time. It is believed that 12-14 classrooms were completed at once. These classrooms were all over campus and were general-purpose classrooms that affected the most students. When the funding availability changed, the program was dissolved. Therefore, our ability to keep up and maintain classrooms has not been where it needs to be. It was suggested that a program like this be established with the utilization of various funding sources. Ms. Riotto stated that she has the financial records for the program and can share that information with whoever needs it. Dr. Copelton asked where the funding source for this program came from. Ms. Riotto stated that it was a combination of college reserves, a portion of the technology fee budget, a portion of the facilities budget and a portion of alternations funding.
  • The suggestion was made to utilize a portion of the additional construction funding that is being received from the State to build a funding source for the needed upgrades and complete a small portion of classrooms yearly.
  • The concern was raised that this is not clearly listed in the Strategic Plan and this needs to be added.
  • The question was raised if there is a Technology Masterplan for the campus. It was discussed that there is one, but it is just for infrastructure and not technology for instructional purposes. That part of the plan needs to be developed.
  • The suggestion was made to utilize a student and have this be there capstone project to complete some of the tasks involved in the inventory and classroom project.
  • It was determined that at this point a technology masterplan and inventory needs to be completed so that we can assess the true needs of the campus. Dr. Heyning agreed to take the lead on this project and will work with Bob Cushman and Jim Wall to determine the technology and space utilization concerns.

Other Items from the Committee

None at this time

The meeting was adjourned at 10:10am

Next Meeting: May 23, 2019, 8:30 - 10:30am

DC/JW/mw