University Times

The University Senate budget policies com- mittee (BPC) has endorsed the basic recommendations of Pitt's new information technology (IT) plan — including the proposed optional fee for better remote computer access.

The committee at its Feb. 25 meeting did make a few suggestions. BPC wants the plan to better address the needs of part-time faculty and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) and to clarify how units will cover new charges.

A draft of the plan titled "An Information Technology Foundation for the 21st Century," was distributed in January to all University Senate committees, the Dean's Council and academic units. (See University Times, Jan. 20.)

The IT plan was prepared by the provost-chaired Information Technology Steering Committee (ITSC). Provost James Maher asked Senate committees and others to respond to the plan in writing by mid-March.

The plan calls for Pitt to spend an additional $9.6 million over the next three fiscal years, beginning July 1. In the current fiscal year, the University budgeted about $15 million for computing services and systems development and about $19 million for network services.

The additional $9.6 million will be used to upgrade computing infrastructure, equipment and facilities, maintain the 800 University-operated modems, expand the University's digital library resources and increase PittNet support, among other initiatives.

Focusing on the budgetary implications of the IT plan, BPC supported a proposed optional information service provider (ISP) fee for Pitt employees and students seeking enhanced remote computer access.

Pitt is negotiating with an information service provider for a preferred partnership that will offer a monthly fee option for better off-campus computer access. The ISP proposal has met some resistance at assemblies and other venues from faculty who maintain that off-campus access to PittNet and other computer services is integral to their jobs so they should not be charged for it.

The University maintains a pool of 800 modems, but everyone, including the administration, acknowledges that the service is inadequate to handle the high volume of users, especially in peak evening hours.

Calling the ISP component "the most controversial part of the IT plan," BPC chair Philip Wion said the committee nonetheless supports it. The University already provides computers, software and Internet access to full-time faculty in their offices, and at least some on-campus access for part-time faculty and graduate teaching assistants, Wion noted.

By crunching numbers, BPC reasoned that providing fully subsidized enhanced remote access for the roughly 1,500 full-time teaching faculty would add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the $1.14 million increase in annual requests already estimated by the plan for proposed IT improvements. "Moreover, arguments for free enhanced access for full-time teaching faculty also apply to part-time faculty and GTAs, adding roughly another 1,500 users," Wion said.

For the University to subsidize the 3,000 potential users would add an estimated annual cost of between $750,000 and $1.5 million, and would likely cut into funds available for salaries and benefits. That would have an unfair impact on staff and others who chose not to utilize the service, Wion said.

The BPC report concluded, "On balance we concur with the position of the ITSC: Basic remote access through the existing modem pool should be preserved and improved, and enhanced remote access should be offered to individual faculty, students and staff at the lowest possible rate that can be negotiated with an ISP."

The BPC report also urged:

* That the IT plan be revised to specify that units will receive funds to address the needs of part-time faculty and GTAs on either a headcount or full-time-equivalent basis. In the current draft, part-time teachers and GTAs are not included in the per capita calculation of the funds to be allocated to units.

* That the revised version of the plan clarify how funds now held centrally will be reallocated to units to ensure resources for unit-specific hardware and software acquisitions. The plan calls for a $500-$750 unit allocation per year per full-time faculty member. But the committee wanted clarification of the extent to which units will be expected to devote funds currently in their budgets, whether from hard money or soft money sources, to resource acquisitions.

* That implementing the IT plan require the acquisition of new accounts management software for better tracking of accounts and the attribution of costs.

* That the revision of the plan call more attention to the role of unit planning and budgeting committees in helping to determine how resources will be allocated. The BPC report stated, "Participation in decision-making contributes not only to the soundness of the decisions but also to their broader understanding and acceptance."

BPC's written report will be sent to the provost, Wion said.

–Peter Hart