Yes Stephen, there is a problem.  But in my opinion, while the lines of communication between IT and FWM have been "open" for years, the comprehension and understanding of what has been said has been the problem.  I'd like to think that this problem is due to a series of simple misunderstandings.  But I am more convinced than ever that the IT department's refusal to hear what is actually being said, reluctance to solve college-wide problems, and cowardice in hiding behind non-existent "policies", unwritten procedures, and false past practices, and then calling them "misunderstandings", is the true problem at hand.

I will explain.

Here is the text from the IT webpage on the Lane website.

Information Technology provides front line support to faculty, staff and students of Lane in a variety of areas. We are the first point of contact for information and technical support on campus.

Stephen, you need to add the phrase, "excluding the college learning management system LMS" to the end of the first sentence in order to be accurate.  Either that or create another sentence that excludes faculty from the "front line of support" part.  The same holds true for the "first point of contact" part.  Please tell me how I am wrong in my assessment.  I believe that I state the truth.

The website text continues...

IT Department Overview

The Information Technology Department provides a broad range of technology support services to the college community. The department was formed in 2000 with the intention of integrating the existing Computer Services Department with the Instructional Technology Support Services Department to form a single technology services organization.

Again, I'm perplexed in how you've actually formed a single technology services organization when you deny the LMS and faculty support parts of the mission.

Okay Stephen, if you are still reading this, perhaps you say "cheap shot" Joe, going to a college website page for ammunition.  I'd tell you to correct the wording or someone may indeed hold you accountable for what you said.  But I do believe that it is a good place to start.  How can IT support all software applications used by a majority of Lane employees (such as Banner and Groupwise), then deny to do the same with the LMS?  Recall Lane's official mission statement that begins "Lane is a learning-centered community college..."   Not if it doesn't support the LMS.  (This is just my opinion, but I am certain that I am not alone in this.)

If the website text was my only complaint, then that would be a shaky foundation for me to stand on.  Thank goodness I have MUCH MORE recent and practical information than that.  

IT used to support the college LMS, WebCT, during a time when only a few instructors used that technology.  A 0.5 FTE position (formerly held by Roka Walsh) served this purpose.  Moreover, an LCCEF union grievance was filed when faculty webmasters were accused of overstepping boundaries and doing this work.  Let me also add that Michael Levick's position was filled when Roka was still employed, but his job was to train Lane staff in every software tool, from Banner to Groupwise to Microsoft Office, but not Moodle.  I have the same problem with this as I mentioned in the above paragraph.

Faculty webmasters have explained time and again that we are aware of cuts in the IT department personnel.  We have also been cut.  But when Roka's position was eliminated, faculty webmasters came to the IT department's temporary rescue and agreed to support Moodle.  We did so.  Apparently, you have forgotten that this was a temporary fix and agreement on our part.  Instead of a thank you, we get blamed for shirking work.  I feel the EXACT same way, but it is aimed at the IT department.  The IT department is guilty of failing to live up to its promises.  And unfortunately for you, I believe that all of the facts support my position, not yours.

#1
IT agreed to support a single LMS chosen by the faculty.  Faculty chose a single LMS.  And after extraordinary work to convert courses and re-train faculty, the IT department will not provide support for faculty.  Regardless of what mythical information you may currently believe, THIS IS THE MAIN REASON YOU HAD TO OUTSOURCE.  We were done with our temporary year-long responsibilities, and IT could not or would not live up to its obligations.
 
#2 In your recent email to me, you wrote:
*  The IT department agreed to provide faculty support FOR SUMMER TERM
ONLY in order to buy time to get the RemoteLearner faculty support in
place.  I was clear that was a temporary arrangement and I would not
agree with any statement that the IT department is the "sole support for
all aspects of Moodle".  

First, you'd like me to respect the temporary nature of IT's Summer Term support for Moodle, but you will deny the faculty webmasters the same.  Our support for Moodle was temporary, for the 2006-7 academic year, during which time the IT department should have been working on solutions for providing this support.  

Second, there is ONLY one reason you can claim your Summer support was temporary.  You must have been planning to outsource this faculty support to Remote Learner.  You weren't planning on putting this responsibility BACK on the faculty webmasters, were you?  That would all logic and good sense.  We had already fulfilled our temporary year-long arrangement.

We can only interpret IT's desire to have faculty webmasters to resume this work as shirking work on YOUR part.  Either that or you do not understand the meaning of the term "faculty support", which I do not think is the case.  Therefore, I do not believe that there is any true misunderstanding here.  It feels much more devious and political.

Your email had a second point.  You wrote,
* It is my very clear understanding that OISS and, in particular, the
faculty webmasters forced the decision to outsource Moodle support to
RemoteLearner.  The IT department not only didn't make the decision, we
opposed it!  David, Todd and I all believe that we outsourced Moodle
hosting to RemoteLearner in order to get the faculty support that the
webmasters determined the college needed.  

From my point of view, this is an absolutely ridiculous claim.  Since IT is the responsible party for supporting Moodle (recall the temporary nature of the faculty webmaster support, ending in Spring 2007), then the IT department made the decision to outsource.  Whether budget cuts and loss of positions caused IT to determine that it could not fulfill its obligations to support the single LMS chosen by faculty, or whether IT just did not want to do the work, it is irrelevant.  In my view, Moodle support is up to the IT department.  If you can't do it, outsource it.  You did so with email spam and Digitar.  You chose to do the same with Moodle.  Meredith was very clear at the big meeting we had in February 2007 when she said choosing the outsource company was up to the IT department.  We did not even want to be included in this work.  Moodle was yours to support, and therefore yours to choose a provider.   But, as has become routine, we were asked to "help out" or "consult" with David about this choice, all in the name of teamwork and "being good co-workers".  In retrospect, this was a foolish involvement on our part.  It makes us culpable to any problems and blamable, just as you have blamed us, in your email, for forcing this decision on the good IT department at Lane.

Faculty support was NOT the only reason to outsource Moodle, and any belief that this was the case is completely wrong.  Let me remind you that the temporary arrangement for faculty webmasters support of faculty using Moodle had come to an END.  There were plenty of technical problems with the server throughout the year. There are too many to mention in this email without tripling its already lengthy size.  But you have to know that THIS ISSUE, technical support, is what drove David to choose Remote Learner over Moodle Rooms for our outsourcing of Moodle.  MoodleRooms offers telephone support and Remote Learner did not.  That alone was enough for the faculty webmasters to support Moodle Rooms.  But David preferred Remote Learner to technical and server reasons.  To us, since Moodle support is IT's responsibility, then Moodle outsourcing is also your responsibility.  If you have been told that faculty webmasters were the primary decision-makers for outsourcing, if you have been told that we "chose" Remote Learner, and if you believe that the only reason to outsource Moodle was because of faculty support issues, then you have not been told the truth.  It is that simple.

So to recap. 

#1
After Spring Term 2007, Moodle support (all of it) reverted to IT's responsibility.  Faculty webmasters had done there temporary job, and had done it well, I might add.  (This point alone makes taking the blame for any problems or miscommunications concerning Moodle that much more despicable.)

#2
IT decided, for whatever reasons, that it could not provide the level of support that Moodle needed as a mission critical college software application.  Therefore, outsourcing was an IT decision.   (Do faculty webmasters support outsourcing?  Absolutely.  Technical problems and bug fixes made our work lives a living hell last year.  In addition, we served as "help desk" employees in both training and supporting over 100+ instructors on a day-to-day basis with "how to" technical questions.)

#3
Here we are, at the start of Fall Term 2008.  Faculty are ready to start using Moodle, a support structure is still in doubt and solutions from the IT department have not been forthcoming.  As a matter of fact, the IT department has seemingly adopted a policy of "the faculty webmasters should do it" and "we are to blame".  Meanwhile, everyone continues to talk and experience miscommunications.

Yes Stephen, there seem to be a number of problems.  But I think they can all be boiled down to one thing.  IT must step up and offer solutions rather than excuses.

Joe