1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. FUTURE COUNCIL MEETINGS
3. FOLLOW-UP TO FACULTY MERIT AND PROMOTION DISCUSSION
4. ELECTRONIC RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION (ERA) SYSTEM
5. HIGHLIGHTS FROM RECENT EDUCAUSE CONFERENCE

Present: Caroline Bledsoe (Chair), Mike Allred, Gil Apaka, John Bruno, David Bunch, Joseph Calger, James Case, James Chalfant, Lynne Chronister, Jack Farrell, Jeff Gibbeling, Andy Jones, Rob Kerner, Barry Klein, Bill Lacy, Yvonne Marsh (for Judy Sakaki), John Meyer, Bob Murta, Stan Nosek, Bob Ono, Ann Orel, Celeste Rose, Brenda Ruth, Marilyn Sharrow, Dave Shelby, Ellen Sutter.

Absent: Lund, Kathleen Moore, and Ann Orel.

Excused: Moore, Steve Roth, James Spriggs, and Mani Tripathi.

Guest: Guentert, Sandra Stewart, Keith Young

Staff to the Council: Julie Saylor, and Babette Schmitt.

Chair Bledsoe asked Council members if they had any comments about the minutes from the October meeting. She pointed specifically to the list of questions recorded in the minutes from the discussion of the Faculty Merit and Promotion system with Connie Melendy, Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Personnel. The minutes, including the summary of the Faculty Merit and Promotion project discussion, were approved with no modifications.

Chair Bledsoe asked for Council members' agreement to continue to meet jointly through the end of the academic year. Members concurred. Meetings will be scheduled for Winter and Spring 04.

Dave Shelby, Assistant Vice Provost for Information and Educational Technology, provided an update on the Faculty Merit and Promotion project discussed with Council members at the October meeting. He noted that Barbara Horwitz, Vice Provost for Academic Personnel, and John Bruno, Vice Provost for Information and Educational Technology (IET), are moving forward with the formation of an oversight committee to coordinate the information gathering process initiated several months ago and to analyze the extent to which the various approaches under consideration will provide the functionality desired in a Web-based Faculty Merit and Promotion system. Shelby noted that the oversight committee is expected to consult widely, including with the joint Councils, Technology Infrastructure Forum, Senior Advisors, Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors, and faculty focus groups. The oversight committee will be co-chaired by Dave Shelby and Connie Melendy, Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Personnel. Members will include representatives from deans’ offices and faculty.

Shelby reminded Council members of the three main options under consideration: a) a document management system capable of supporting workflow functionality; b) InfoVault, the system in use in the School of Medicine and being considered by the Division of Biological Sciences; and c) a customized, in-house solution. He noted that the project team is also assessing solutions being considered or already implemented at other campuses. Additionally, Connie Melendy is developing an analysis of the impact on staff and faculty workloads.
One member emphasized the importance of consulting with Academic Senate groups, and Chair Bledsoe reiterated her security-related concerns, noting that she would like to revisit these security issues as a separate discussion topic at a future meeting. Council members concurred.

IV. ELECTRONIC RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION (ERA) SYSTEM

UC Davis Electronic Research Administration System: Summary of Requirements (11/20/03 draft)
Homework: Electronic Research Administration System (ERA) Discussion Topic (12/1/03)
ERA PowerPoint Presentation (12/1/03)

Process for Prioritizing and Funding Campuswide IT Projects – John Meyer
Caroline Bledsoe asked John Meyer, Vice Chancellor for Resource Management and Planning, to provide Council members with an overview of the process used for prioritizing the various information technology projects seeking campus funding. Meyer noted that both the Faculty Merit and Promotion System and the Electronic Administration Research System are emerging as high priorities to simplify complicated processes and save time for faculty, staff, and PIs. Meyer indicated that the provost is interested in making investments in solutions that will help the campus move forward, particularly in these times of budgetary uncertainties. She will be seeking input and recommendations from a variety of groups to ensure the highest priorities are identified. Meyer added that feedback from the Council about IT projects (e.g., Merit/Promotion and ERA/Electronic Research Administration systems) will be particularly helpful in providing a faculty and staff perspective.

John Bruno mentioned that he has shared a draft list of IT Projects for 2003-05 with all members of the Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors, as well as the Senior Advisors group, for their comment and rankings. He added that this is the first step in what will be an iterative review and comment process. Priority-setting for these projects will be initiated soon, perhaps at the Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors Retreat in February.

Overview of ERA Need and Status – Lynne Chronister
Caroline Bledsoe introduced the ERA topic by referring to two of the documents available in Council members’ packets: a) the “Homework” sheet outlining the background for this project as well as a series of discussion topics for Council consideration (see Homework); and b) the summary of requirements developed by the ERA project team.

Lynne Chronister, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, then provided an overview of the project, including its status, funding sources, and the various needs such a system would address (see PowerPoint presentation).

Discussion
Caroline Bledsoe facilitated a discussion of the proposed project. Highlights follow:
System requirements:

1. Should be accessible from anywhere, any time.
2. Needs to integrate well with the campus’ fund-raising process (“hooks into the Advancement Information System); should be informed by the full scope of the university’s philanthropic relations
3. Should provide the ability to generate a variety of reports (e.g., reports to granting agencies and the ability to collect department/college-specific aggregate data).
4. Needs to integrate seamlessly with systems run by various agencies (InfoEd is compliant with over 150 agencies; integration with the NSF and NIH systems is critical).
5. Needs ability to integrate with international agencies (e.g., China, France, etc.).
6. Should permit and encourage collaboration.
7. Need to establish a support system for all users.

Background:
The AC4 Research Subcommittee was asked last year to examine and provide feedback on the ERA system. The main question the group focused on revolved around how to make the system faculty- and staff-friendly. The group identified three main criteria as being essential: the availability of electronic signatures, the ability to connect with existing databases and systems, and compliance with guidelines re: animal welfare, human subjects, etc.

ERA modules:
On average, universities purchase 5 modules. Examples of major modules: Proposal development (for faculty use); Tracking system; Project management; Time and effort reporting; Animal/human subject guidelines; and Safety. A complete list is available from the project team.

Costs:
The campus is incurring fines for non-compliance. Estimated overall costs for the ERA system: approx. $1M. Includes hardware.

Questions:

1. Will faculty and staff be required to enter proposal data twice -- once into a campus ERA system, and a second time into a specific, mandatory agency grant submission system (e.g., NSF & NIH)?
2. Would the ERA system and the Faculty Merit/Promotion system be able to interact?
3. How would security and confidentiality of data be protected in the ERA?
4. Could information from faculty dossiers be entered one time, then used for multiple purposes (eg. ERA, Merit/Promotion, UCD personnel reporting, etc.)?
5. How would PI status be defined and identified?
6. If an ERA system is acquired in modules, what are the modules and which ones will be acquired first? How would the process be phased into the UCD grant submission and tracking system?
7. Would the ERA interact with other major campus systems --- (e.g., DaFIS , AIS [advancement information fund-raising system, including alumnae & friends of the campus], PPS [payroll personnel system], Merit/Promotion system)?
8. What is the status of ERA-type systems at other UC campuses? Have any UC systems developed a list of requirements for an ERA?
9. What is the cost of an ERA? Would the ERA be bid competitively or sole-sourced? Why might sole-source be desirable?
10. What is the timeline for implementation of an ERA?

V. HIGHLIGHTS FROM RECENT EDUCAUSE CONFERENCE

Ellen Sutter (Teaching Resources Center), Bob Ono (IT Security Coordinator), and Caroline Bledsoe shared some highlights from the sessions they attended at the Educause Annual Conference held in Anaheim in November. The theme of the conference was “Balancing Opportunities, Expectations and Resources.” Some of the topics discussed included: e-portfolios, assessment of online and hybrid courses, electronic white boards and collaboration tools, information technology risk assessment in higher education, and peer-to-peer file sharing.

(Note: To review session presentation materials, recordings of the general and featured speaker sessions, and issues of the conference news, see the Conference Presentations and Resources page at http://www.educause.edu/conference/annual/2003/.)

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.