All attendees joined remotely, via Zoom.

Attendees (13):
Kristy Artello, Michael Cabral, Amita Chin, Mark Crosthwaite, Kathryn Murphy-Judy, Sonali Rathore, Kirk Richardson, Valerie Robnolt, Carmen Rodriguez, Debra Shockey, Jim Smither, Shanaka Wijesinghe, Megan Hodge (alternate for Hope Kelly)

Also in attendance (5):
Ex officio members: Alex Henson, Katherine Maynard, Mandara Savage, Colleen Bishop
Scribe: Jana Avery

Valerie opened the meeting and welcomed everyone.

Approval of Minutes

The September 13, 2021 meeting minutes were approved with the following revisions:

• Someone stated that the only item missing was the follow-up for including this committee in purchasing procedures.

• Follow-up, 11/23/21: Review of the September minutes by Jana Avery revealed that the topic was included. In the minutes, under the section titled “Funding and Approval” are the notes for the discussion about the need for faculty feedback to piloting, funding and approval of software of systems. Pending action item noted: “Alex Henson offered to look into this further. Any path we take for gathering feedback and approval will take time. Justifications, proposals, funding, etc. will require significant amounts of time and effort by those involved.”

Follow-up Items from the September Meeting

• Action Item Complete: Jana Avery verified that everyone has access to the Google Group and Google Shared Drive, and the membership list was updated
• Action Item Complete: Jana Avery obtained instructions from TS Collaboration Services and shared with the Health System members for how they can access the Google shared drive.
• Action Item Complete: Alex Henson followed up on the recent changes to the myVCU portal and shared the following with the committee: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n_ewfxxRvoazjJsxJ7CgzNHsrq2zsLQR

Representation on IT Governance

Valerie opened this discussion, continued from the September meeting, about having more faculty representation on the IT Governance committee. This is especially important for IT proposals that have an impact on faculty. 

• Currently Valerie and Scott Street are the only faculty members that participate in IT Governance, due to their membership in the Faculty Senate. 
• During the last IT Governance meeting, Valerie raised the question about having those proposals come to FTAC first. Due to the number of processes involved for a proposal there is a concern about adding another step to the process.
• FTAC members are in favor of having more faculty representation at IT Governance, and agree that there should be at least one faculty from Monroe Park and one from MCV. It was also agreed that those additions be members from FTAC. 
• Alex Henson stated that he would welcome 2 additional members, and that it would be a great way to ensure FTAC is informed and that faculty input is provided. He will let the vice presidents and the provost know, and does not expect any objections.
• Valerie asked if the representatives should come from this committee. Alex feels that it  would be a good idea to come through this committee, which is more technology oriented.
• Valerie shared a few details about IT Governance (i.e. meeting schedule, proposal reviews). 
• She asked for feedback from the attendees about having IT Governance representation come from FTAC, and if we should decide now, rather than waiting until our meeting, which is in February. Feedback from members was positive and it was agreed that the representatives be selected from FTAC now.   
• There was a brief discussion about the different colleges and schools, and their diverse IT requirements, and whether or not each of them should have a representative. It was mentioned that several of the MCV schools do have someone on the committee, and it was agreed that would suffice. Valerie moved that FTAC provide representatives for participation in IT Governance and the motion was seconded. With no additional discussion needed, the committee voted by show of hands (or emoji), all in favor and the motion passed. 
• Valerie then asked for volunteers. Shanaka Wijesinghe volunteered for the School of Pharmacy (MCV); Valerie and Scott Street are already reps for Monroe Park, but she asked if others want to be included. 
• Alex Henson shared examples of the proposals that IT Governance is involved in. He mentioned Canvas LMS, Athletics, and also stated how many proposals the committee receives, on average. He and Valerie elaborated on what the representatives do, and answered a few other questions. 
• Valerie clarified that FTAC will provide 1 faculty from Monroe Park and 1 from MCV.  She and Scott Street are both from Monroe Park, and will continue in their role (during their membership in the Faculty Senate). Designating 2 faculty, would ensure that FTAC always has 2 representatives (1 from each campus) on the IT Governance Committee.
• There were no additional volunteers, and Valerie asked anyone interested to please email her.

RFP Committees for Technology-oriented Proposals 

Valerie opened the discussion about having more items come to FTAC to ensure faculty representation and input. For example, Faculty Senate should/would be consulted and/or involved in IT-related RFPs that directly impact faculty. The discussion included how to make sure that there are faculty participants on these committees, or have the Faculty Senate consult with FTAC, or vice versa?

Secondary discussion about the new RFP for Program Management Solutions
Why do we need another RFP, when we have Noodle?
Mandara Savage explained the situation with Noodle Partners having been hired initially for two specific colleges and that the current contract covers those two schools/programs. (Masters of Social Work and the Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness Programs.) As more schools began to consider program management solutions for their needs, steps were taken to establish an RFP committee to review the current agreement and determine what changes were needed for an enterprise level agreement that would include all programs, colleges, and entities at VCU. This review includes analyzing the current contract, working with the academic areas and establishing “program agreements” within the larger agreement. Membership for the committee was initially sought by contacting all college deans. Additional members were needed to represent other areas impacted by the agreement (i.e. Procurement, Technology Services, the Provost’s Office).  When colleges analyze what services they want from a vendor, that’s when you have the greatest infusion of faculty presence on RFP committees. We have to honor the original contract that is in place (for seven years), but the fact that we're establishing a new or expanded agreement does not eliminate Noodle from participating with other colleges and programs. It just does not allow their current program to take advantage of the new agreement.

How do we ensure there is faculty representation on committees? 

• It was agreed that RFPs that have a direct impact on faculty, should have faculty representation on the committee.
• It was acknowledged that faculty representatives are on committees, but not consistently. There are committees that have unit representatives who are not faculty, while other committees have multiple faculty included. Examples of past and present RFP committees were shared.
• Shouldn’t the opportunity be provided for the faculty who are in the specific schools impacted to participate? Faculty are ultimately the ones using a system and should be allowed to participate in the review process. When specific schools or units are making the decisions to adopt new academic technologies, shouldn’t there be faculty representatives from that school or unit included?

What has happened up to this point, and what should happen going forward? 

• Membership is often only solicited from only one source (i.e. the deans), which could result in staff and administrators being selected instead of faculty.
• The need for faculty representatives on these committees are primarily for input about what is being considered, why and how it impacts faculty; and less about  sales and funding. 
• If you don't have any faculty represented, the Recruitment Coordinator is going to have a much different view of what needs to happen with the program than faculty who will actually be putting the program in place.
• The committees need to know how faculty want a program structured and what is within a program agreement, as this could have an impact on how the faculty’s courses are designed.
• Some companies approach their offerings with the attitude of telling faculty how our class should be taught and what the pedagogy should be. As faculty, we know our content and we know the pedagogy behind how we should teach. It is much better when a company understands the role of faculty and wants to include us.  Some companies will explain what is happening in the industry, and offer the products, which might not fit with how faculty deliver/present their curriculum. 
• At what point should FTAC be pulled into RFPs that are proposed? There are different phases of the process which could serve as checkpoints, like the office of procurement phase. Does FTAC want to be involved in every RFP or just those with certain attributes? It was agreed that FTAC should always have a voice or vision of every proposal being considered.
• Until there is something formally established, FTAC’s diverse representation from different areas of campus and could set targets for the type of teaching, faculty, or school. It was suggested that proposals routed to FTAC be divided amongst members for initial investigation, and group discussion; and then provide feedback to the Faculty Senate about how the proposal will affect faculty and whether or not faculty representatives are needed on the RFP committee. 
• Another suggestion was to have FTAC leadership take a quick look at the proposals and share feedback with this committee as needed. Also for any that are flagged as faculty concern, make sure the information gets to the faculty that are implicated and to IT Governance. Members of FTAC that are involved in or aware of proposals should share that information with FTAC.
• Units that initiate RFPs need to know who to contact for faculty representation.  For technology-oriented proposals, should both Faculty Senate and FTAC be consulted?  A recent example is the discussion about Academic Integrity In Online Exams, which many faculty were not aware of.  
• RFPs can be multi-faceted. Those that need a faculty point of view (i.e. policies)  which would be managed by the Faculty Senate; and those that involve  technology which need FTAC involvement. FTAC is already positioned to voice faculty concerns and opinions, but we need to determine the logistics for how to do that.
• How do we streamline the process for representation? Do we need to distinguish between Faculty Senate and FTAC so the requester knows who to ask for faculty representation?  If the Faculty Senate is the designated go-to group, then they should know which committees or counsels there are for seeking faculty representation.  
• There needs to be an awareness of FTAC as a go-to committee, which was developed specifically to focus on technology-oriented needs. Currently there is a disconnect between what faculty are experiencing and what ends up happening. Using FTAC as a resource is extremely important, because the Faculty Senate has a much broader scope.  FTAC members have used technology in their teaching for several years and should be used as a resource.

Voting: A move was made that FTAC ask Debra Noble-Triplett to have a representative from  FTAC serve on the Academic Integrity In Online Exams committee. The move was seconded and passed by show of hands (or emoji), with no one opposed.

Action Item (Valerie): Prepare for voting in FTAC meetings, via a form and/or specify which icons to use (and how to use them).

New or in-progress committees, that FTAC should be aware of:

• Online Strategy Task Force – another case where FTAC should have been asked to provide a representative. There are actually people from FTAC and Faculty Senate on the committee--Jon Becker, Kristy Artello, Valerie Robnolt, Colleen Bishop and Mandara Savage, so FTAC is represented.
• Academic Online Programs Group – chaired by Veronica Shuford and James Fowlkes will present information to the Faculty Senate on November 30th. This committee, formed out of Debra Noble-Triplett’s area, will address institutional items such as definitions and how they relate to course programs, processes for online programs, and other details (i.e. settings in Banner). This committee will attempt to fill the gaps associated with how a program is defined as online, and will facilitate the move towards a point where these guidelines are institutionally adopted, which is the reason it came through the Faculty Senate. The committee will not be focused on technology, but more about how we define online learning as an institution. 

Action Item (Alex): Has informed the Provost about FTAC, and will continue to share this information with others in the Provost’s  office. 

Action Item (Valerie):  Will inform others (i.e. Debra Noble-Triplett) that FTAC exists and should be used as a resource for technology-focused committees that impact faculty.

Fall Semester Status and Expectations for Spring

• Should there be another survey of students regarding modality preferences? 
• There are some reports of attendance issues. Valerie spoke with the Provost recently about surveying the students this semester. It would be helpful to know what attendance was before the pandemic versus now. It appears that attendance is worse, and faculty are requiring face-to-face classes instead of hyflex (a huge burden for faculty). There would need to be an infrastructure in place to accommodate the faculty who are not as familiar with or adaptable to hyflex. 
• Some concerns that giving students a choice may be because they prefer to attend from home and not pay rent in Richmond, etc. There is most likely a mix of this, plus those that choose remote because they haven’t been vaccinated.

What are the top technology questions/issues/concerns right now?

• Canvas Requirement, support for faculty, and system outages
  • Are faculty required to use Canvas? Colleen said there is a shell for every course, but doesn’t know if it is required. Alex said he is not aware of it being mandatory. Kristy said that some schools require that all syllabi be posted, but there are some adjunct faculty that don’t know what Canvas is and can barely use email.
• Valerie shared a question from the Faculty Senate meeting, about academic services, but doesn’t have many details yet. Some are having difficulty with Apps2Go, and High Performance Research Computing Core Facility, Question Pro. 
  • Kristy had issues with Apps2Go and said that there is a new version of Citrix Workspace. In  order for Apps2Go to work properly, you have to uninstall your existing version and  install the new one.

Action Item (Alex): Find out more about these issues.

• Faculty are bringing in their own microphones.  Is there a list of supported microphones to purchase? 

Post Meeting Follow-up: Colleen followed up on this and shared information with FTAC.