CONFIDENTIAL

Sonya,

I got your voicemail and this might be difficult to do over email.  If you could give me a call, that would certainly help.  In the process of "removing" smart classroom requests from the Tech Fee allocation rankings, I believe that some proposals got "short changed".  What originally had been highly ranked, was ranked lower in subsequent passes because we were told the Office of Instruction would be paying for all of the smart classroom requests.  Even then, I was pretty certain myself that you (OISS) did not have this kind of money.  (After all, I couldn't get soda and cookies for three LMS afternoon presentations.)

The proposals that I see were above the original cut-off line for funding are included here, in committee order, with my comments.

Row ID 107 - Social Science - 4 smart classrooms

	Last year, the Social Science Department asked for, and received funding for 5 smart classrooms to be built in Building #19.  To date, not a single classroom has been completed.  More importantly, many departments use rooms in Building #19.  The Social Science Department simply "hoped" that if a few were built, that maybe, just maybe, some of our instructors would, by chance, be scheduled into one of these "open" classrooms.  Regardless of what the administration says, departments do "own" classrooms, and when they ask for them to be "made smart" with technology, that department gains the sole benefit.  Many other departments also use the "open" classrooms in Building #19, but never have they made a Unit Plan Request (or a Tech Fee request in the years before the Unit Plans) to equip a room for the benefit of the entire college. 
 
I do believe these rooms should be funded.  When completed, that will make 9 new smart classrooms for Lane's students and instructors, all due to the selfless initiative of Ken Murdoff and the Social Science Department faculty who have ranked them at the top of every one of their Unit Plan Requests.

Row ID 49 - Counseling - Smart classroom for 1/224

The Tech Fee Committee is entrusted with "leveling the playing field".  Counseling has not been granted much Tech Fee funding over the years, so the committee rightly ranked this proposal high.  I think it should be funded.

Row ID 97 - Math Dept - 2 smart classrooms - $30,000

The Math Department has asked for 8 smart classrooms over the past 2 or 3 years.  I believe that they postponed part of their request from one year to the next because Facilities and Electronic Services could not complete the work.

These smart classrooms are located on the second floor of Building #16 and will almost surely be used by Math instructors only.  Will every math instructor in every math class during every hour of the day utilize the 8 smart classrooms?  Social Science is a MUCH larger division and they have but 4 smart classrooms to call their own on the 4th floor of the Center building.

In addition, as mentioned below, Math benefited from a new $40,000 request for time card employees that will continue to be a reoccuring request and drain on the Tech Fee for years to come.  I am less favorable about funding this request.

Row ID 70 - Experimental Classroom - $49,500 (reduced to $20,500)

Will the Faculty Webmasters have enough FTE to support this room next year?  That is very questionable.  Is the room REALLY being used for experimental reasons?  I don't believe it is.  The room is already a smart classroom and very well may find itself back in the pool of available classrooms in Building #19.  

The reduced price was to put 5, not 20 laptops in the room, with some iPods and web cameras for "experimental purposes".  This idea was a Faculty Webmaster idea, but I am not personally behind the Faculty Webmasters "controlling real estate" (classrooms) at Lane.

Row ID 62 - Health and PE - $4752 (originally $17,282)

This department historically does not receive much Tech Fee funding and this is a very small amount to fund.  If they can accomplish their goals with the smaller amount, I would support it.

Sonya, I believe that is all of the Smart Classroom requests.  There may be others, but I don't believe an rose above the cutoff line.

I also want to say that I believe that having managers serve on this committee was a problem and can prove so statistically.  The original Tech Fee group would NEVER have approved BRAND NEW FUNDING of $40,000 for the Math Department to hire time card help.  It passed because the managers "voted alike" on this proposal and clearly skewed the overall ranking order so that this initiative would rise above the cutoff line.  One manager who was NOT on the committee, Mark Williams, DID in fact lose the $50,000 time card funding which they had historically received.  His request actually fell below the cutoff line.  

This committee is entrusted with making decisions for the good of the entire Lane campus.  Good managers must be advocates for their divisions.  I found these to traits to be incompatible this year, for the first time in my five years serving on the Tech Fee committee.

END CONFIDENTIAL