         |
 |
CCC Home --> Meetings --> Minutes --> Meeting Notes: October 15, 1998
C.C.C. meeting Notes:
October 15, 1998
In attendance:
Daniel Tran - Arts and Architecture (dtran@ucla.edu
5-1336)
Peter Kovaric - Education and Information Studies (koveric@gseis.ucla.edu 5-6608)
John DeGolyer - Law (John@law.ucla.edu 5-4689)
Neil Parker - Medicine (nparker@ucla.edu 5-6774)
Gale Winting - Public Health (wwinting@ucla.edu 5-5140)
Gregg Kitch - SEAS (kitch@seas.ucla.edu 5-0471)
Eric Chang - Extension (eric@ucla.edu 6-5820)
John Riley - Social Sciences (jriley@ssc.ucla.edu , riley@econ.ucla.edu 6-1412)
Virtual Participants:
Kathleen kiser - Dentistry (kkiser@dent.ucla.edu
6-6070)
Karie Masterson - Humanities (karie@humnet.ucla.edu
5-3981)
Mike Vasser - Life Sciences (mvasser@lifesci.ucla.edu 6-7567)
Jason Frand - Business (jfrand@anderson.ucla.edu
5-0522)
Janis Rosebrook - Nursing (jrosebro@sonnet.ucla.edu
4-6244)
Max Kopelevich - Physical Sciences (mik@chem.ucla.edu
6-3902)
Gregg opened with the security working subgroup: He circulated a list of people from each
department who will be involved with the Group.
John Riley - Mentioned updated the group about the security officer position @ ITPG in the short
run they will use someone from OAC and have him pull things together. Needs to merge this together
with the CCC working group.
Daniel Tran will coordinate the security group. He will contact Marsha and the new person who is
appointed as the acting security director.
Gregg - Update on Secure -id will invite AIS to next meeting. AIS will continue to maintain
secure id for everyone who has update access. All others will not use Secure- pad. We decided to
invite Don Worth to talk about Secure-id and campus authentication at the end of our next
meeting.
Meeting Agenda:
1) Follow up on small group meeting with Marsha Smith.
- We post someone at AITB. Someone from AITB will be here. John thinks she would be a great
representative. AITB has one -year lifetime. John thinks it would be fantastic for the committee.
Marsha will be here to pick up the nuances.
- The primary role to help each other Marsha could help provide resources. There may be a time
when it would not be comfortable to have her here to discuss various issues at which point we would
let her know. We have consensus to invite and will ask her to attend the next meeting. The more
informal the better.
2) Structure of the CCC :
- We all agree that we like the idea of rotating place, rotating host, rotating agenda, and
setting agenda. As Gail suggests - The more we can break down the categories the better.
- The central role of a Coordinator, Facilitator, Convenor:
- Web Site.
- Point of Contact.
- Fall back for Group Person.
- Someone to co-ordinate the information, notification.
- Information Center - role
- We want to share and make it an obvious place.
- Make sure that votes take place
- We should all be willing to play that role.
- If something comes up then they need to notify the list.
- We all want to keep the group simple as possible, we want this to be able to change we want to
keep it practical and keep this fluid. The loser the system the better.
- Who-ever becomes coordinator, should have a backup. Let the coordinator delegate to handle
everything. If the coordinator is not doing the job - then we can terminate them. The term should
be about one year.
- ITPG has four people, we should leave it the way it is. The four would like to be recognized as
representatives for CCC. We would like to have ITPG have a discussion and ask if the ITPG will
allow the CCC to appoint the four representatives from the CCC so we can rotate representation. Our
current reps are: Jason, Karie, Thom and Max. If Jason accepts the position to the IPTG then we
would like to nominate someone from the CCC to serve on the ITPG.
- Jason is now at Educomm. In his absence we approved Jason as our AITB representative. And hope
he will accept.
- John and Gregg were nominated for the Coordinator and fallback positions - terms to begin now.
Suggestions or other nominations are welcome in email, confirmation at the October meeting.
3) Discussion of the Human Resource Issues:
- CHR released a memo to adjust the range of PA 1 - 3 positions. The memo doesn't really offer us
a solution; nothing has changed for the Merit increases. Nothing has been addressed at the Campus
level or Deans' level, each academic department has been left to fend for itself. The memo pushes
responsibility to the schools units to put more responsibility to each academic unit.
- Instead we need something from the Chancellors level something to put money into the Pot:
either re-define the Pie or find new Money for Information Technology. The job market is tight in
all areas. IT is critical in all areas of the economy. Jobs are plentiful. Instead of the Dean to
redefining the pie, the UC needs to say challenges are significant and figure out some method to
improve our recruitment and retention. This process needs to happen at the Chancellors level.
- How do we get this issue addressed? Should we go directly to AITB? Do we assign to someone to
Al Solomon office? John Riley noted that he had spoken with Al's office and described the process
the people involved with the HR memo, pressed the presidents office and the presidents office
didn't come up with any sort of response or funding.
- We need to develop some sort of awareness and build campus knowledge that we are in a very
tight difficult position regarding filling the positions for Information Technology at the
University. As Neil points out we have been keeping things together for so long that we may need to
see major failures of Informational Technology in order to highlight the urgency of the issue.
Things may need to get Bad before they get resolved.
- John suggested that not only do we need resources to address this problem. We need flexibility
in directing the resources to solve our issues. John would like to see More Human resources Policy
issues decided at the IT managerial level.
- Neil Parker Brought in two very important points to keep in mind as we address this issue:
- 1) H. R. policy defines not only the I.T. positions, but, thousands of positions in the UC
system. H.R. puts policy in place with a broad brush - one size fits all. If we push for any
exception that would interfere with this broad policy then may well not advance our position.
- 2) In the medical area, they face shortages of all kinds of highly skilled people with
competitive market demand. In other words, our situation with IT personal is not unique.
- Neil, though we didn't get a chance to discuss this, is there a chance that there may be some
experience in the Medical areas that might help us with this IT ?
- Gail brought up the following concept. We have the flexibility and mechanism to arrange for
change. He points out that this issue is a Zero Sum game, you have to find resources. We know the
Chancellor has more resources, but this needs to be more of upper level priority. Our goal would be
to force the zero sum game up the ladder. Potential sources of help would be. Al Solomon, Ruei
Arnett, the new CIO position would need to become a high level advocate, the new UCLA CFO could
also be an advocate, Archie could make the funding of IT positions a top priority of the AITB,
additionally Rory Hume - all of these people would be stake holders.
- If it is true that the University has decided to approach the state for a special allocation
for the purpose of retaining and hiring skilled IT personal. Then we should make every effort to
build political support inside and outside the University for this allocation.
- Additionally all of us could agree to take this issue to our Deans and see what we can do to
get this issue raised at the Deans council and bring some creative solutions at that level.
Building awareness is our first issue:
- Gail Winting, offered to draft a first memo on this issue if the rest of the group will provide
him with information and Support. He would create a one or two page memo that would highlight some
of the bullet points developed at our meeting:
- Information Technology is a unique job classification: everything in the University from
business systems to distribution of academic teaching, research, scholarship and practice is driven
by IT. Pulling away the infrastructure for this activity would lead to chaos in the university
system.
- If the Chancellors goal is to target areas that are primary strengths and then let weak areas
go. Could Information Technology be targeted and developed as a primary strength? Or at the very
least recognized as a cost of doing business?
- We are losing employees, because of lack of competitive salaries. If we view the UC as a
corporation, then we have to really bring people in, to remain competitive.
- If people leave the UC - we go back to drop scale and cannot rehire at the same rate. I guess
the key here is for us as managers to aggressively reclassify our good programmer Analysts.
- Ruie has a ton of Data and a major report on this - Can we get that Data out to the deans and
include it in a memo? Included in those points might be:
- Length of time to get someone - type of people we are losing. If people leave - especially at
the senior levels we loose continuity. Lost people cost for replacements.
- We would request some level of flexibility to implement any personal changes so on the
proposal.
- We would also want some funding provided to attempt a " catch up" funding for UC.
- Can we change the way that UC competes with people on the outside? (For examples a Separate
nursing contract to compete with outside costs).
- Go to look at other Universities and see what they are doing to meet competition.
- When CTS took over communication they had a big savings over Consulting. The system was able to
do it when we made a change.
- Please send all of your information to Gail Winting Winting@ucla.edu Any help putting together this draft would be
good.
4) Conclusion of meeting
- We need to appoint someone for visualization project : Max ?
- John Riley = report, getting people together to discuss OACs role in statistical consulting:
Not sure that they have thought clearly about the issues, an organization, which is adrift. OAC
needs a full time director.
Next meeting:
One Year Anniversary Meeting at Law school:
- Talk about new developments and Educational
- Technology funding. - what's new - how we are solving problems.
- Review and make suggestions on Position Paper to OAC
- Follow Up on HR - Suggestions Winting@ucla.edu
- Don Worth 30 Minutes - Secure ID
|
|
