College Tech Officers Laid Off? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 4, 2005

RE: College Tech Officers Laid Off?

Date: Dec 5, 2005

Golf Claps wrote:

ah, yes! Golf claps all around for the Pileum CTO invention.....(let's give credit where credit is due).....golf claps!!! Technology at USM will be going to heck in a handbasket without the CTOs!!

I'm sorry, but this is an incredibly stupid reply. Golf claps?? what in the world are "golf claps" and what in the world does this have to do with the post you are responding, supposedly, to?

Pileum is due a whole range of criticism, as is a host of other USM entities and people. Doesn't mean everything they came up with is wrong. Some ideas may turn out to be right when implemented correctly, and that is the key. The world's greatest ideas can be implemented badly and fall by the wayside.

What I am suggesting is this: The CTOs can serve a vital funtion within colleges because they can respond FAR more rapidly and thoroughly to the needs of those colleges, particularly when it comes to long term planning and accreditation issues, but also for the mundane things like "I need a new PC" issues. They can serve as a vital link to iTech without being under the thumb of iTech. And, believe me, there is a great advantage to that distinction.

Shove your "golf claps" and give me any real reasons, based on facts, why the current CTOs should not retain their current positions. Then we can start an honest debate and I'll present all facts I can provide.

Date: Dec 5, 2005

the fact is itech needs about $26 million to do its job, they only get about $10 million. The CTO's are taking away part of the money and direct support of academics is not a priority. In my area we do not need a CTO to help us get our work done. We ave learned to rely on ourselves.

As for Pileum, they took enough money from USM for little in return. Lets not rehash bad memories.

Date: Dec 6, 2005

no money wrote:

the fact is itech needs about $26 million to do its job, they only get about $10 million. The CTO's are taking away part of the money and direct support of academics is not a priority. In my area we do not need a CTO to help us get our work done. We ave learned to rely on ourselves. As for Pileum, they took enough money from USM for little in return. Lets not rehash bad memories.

$26 million? If you believe that I have piece of nearby piece of swampland to sell you for a quarter of a trillion...

You've been listening to too much ITECH moaning. Figures never lie but liars figure... First and foremost when scrambling for dollars everyone loves to talk about THEM in terms of expenditures and US in terms of State budget. Big Difference. Close behind is the reality that we be at the bottom of da Wurl Class Research world, not everyone in that world is above average. It is silly to compare our needs with peer group that include private research intensive institutions (Harvard and the like), institutions with >50,000 students (Texas), institutions that have major computer hungry programs like AI/Real Engineering/Real Physics/Real Mathematics (not UM or State), and Institutions that have real library programs with more journals supplied on line than Southern has in its physical libraries. We should benchmark with a peer group that is state funded in a poor state, of equivalent size and of equivalent research standing.

Any shifting here is not based on $'s, nor on the needs of the users, but rather on children wanting all of the toys in their sandbox.

Date: Dec 6, 2005

What's in Your Wallet,

I believe the deans may have "stood up" when they did the review of the president last year. Each dean had a talk with Crofts (as did Faculty Senate, Academic Council, Graduate Council) and I heard that Shelby was pretty mad at the deans after the review.

Perhaps the deans feel that they are between a rock and a hard place and whatever they do at this point is...well...pointless. I don't know. By watching their actions, knowing that Fos, Pood, Gandy, and Doty have all applied for more than one position, I think that they feel their only viable choice is to get out of USM.

I also understand that the deans aren't getting the budgets they feel they need to keep their colleges up and running, particularly with on-line courses. They were promised a certain sumof money that previously had gone to continuing education and now they are getting a small fraction of that money. The figure I heard may mean that many online courses may not be taught next year (like ENG 203 World Literature). Gregg Lassen reputedly told a dean who responded to the cut that they couldn't afford to offer the classes and Lassen said if you can't afford it, don't offer the course(s).

What a mess.

Amy Young

Date: Dec 6, 2005

Putting away the FEMA calculator wrote:

$26 million? If you believe that I have piece of nearby piece of swampland to sell you for a quarter of a trillion...
You've been listening to too much ITECH moaning. Figures never lie but liars figure... First and foremost when scrambling for dollars everyone loves to talk about THEM in terms of expenditures and US in terms of State budget. Big Difference. Close behind is the reality that we be at the bottom of da Wurl Class Research world, not everyone in that world is above average. It is silly to compare our needs with peer group that include private research intensive institutions (Harvard and the like), institutions with >50,000 students (Texas), institutions that have major computer hungry programs like AI/Real Engineering/Real Physics/Real Mathematics (not UM or State), and Institutions that have real library programs with more journals supplied on line than Southern has in its physical libraries. We should benchmark with a peer group that is state funded in a poor state, of equivalent size and of equivalent research standing.
Any shifting here is not based on $'s, nor on the needs of the users, but rather on children wanting all of the toys in their sandbox.

iTech does, however, operate in a state of poverty with respect to their needs. Do you realize that USM in not in compliance with the Patriot Act? With other "laws"? I'd say that until iTech can get USM compliant legally, that it is underfunded.

Date: Dec 7, 2005

iTech does, however, operate in a state of poverty with respect to their needs. Do you realize that USM in not in compliance with the Patriot Act? With other "laws"? I'd say that until iTech can get USM compliant legally, that it is underfunded.

can you go into more detail for us how we arent compliant with the patriot act? with other "laws"?

this info would help me out.

Date: Dec 7, 2005

Who created itech and who led it for almost two years? A. Dvorak. The blame should fall where it lies. SFT and AD started this cut before she left but neither had the b@lls to disclose it. In my opinion itech has been a life saver for us, tech wise.

Date: Dec 7, 2005

Scoop wrote:

Who created itech and who led it for almost two years? A. Dvorak. The blame should fall where it lies. SFT and AD started this cut before she left but neither had the b@lls to disclose it. In my opinion itech has been a life saver for us, tech wise.

Hate to break it to you, Scoop, but while "Dr. Dr. Dvorak" may have come up with the "iTech" name, she certainly didn't "create" it. "iTech" was the renamed "Institute for Technology Resources", which was founded by John McGowan under the Fleming presidency. In fact, Horace brought in John McG as "Chief Technology Officer" despite a search committee which preferred another candidate. McGowan, the self-described "smartest man on campus when it comes to technology", was a California consultant and friend of Fleming during Horace's time at the University of Pacific.

Institutional memory is a casualty of the Thames administration.

Date: Dec 7, 2005

"can you go into more detail for us how we arent compliant with the patriot act? with other "laws"? this info would help me out."

There are no new compliance requirements in place because of the patriot act, only more freedom for the government to operate under existing law. However concurrent with its passage the FBI stepped up activities and surveillance of the general community, particularly through the internet. Among their tactics is to seize offending computers or networks without warning. Again this is not new in terms of law, but new emphasis and freedom to do so. A major reason to do this is cyber warfare involving an outside entity hacking into a college network and then turning the network's resources towards a cyber attack on a government network or a financial/utility network that is viewed as threatening national security. Government response, shut down offending network and seize its assets until it all gets sorted out. So, Network supervisors are moving to really beef up security, firewalls, ability to track users and ability to proactively detect misuse of university Networks to prevent having it taken off line for months if the feds get a hair up their butts about some infraction.

Date: Dec 8, 2005

their watching wrote:

"can you go into more detail for us how we arent compliant with the patriot act? with other "laws"? this info would help me out."
There are no new compliance requirements in place because of the patriot act, only more freedom for the government to operate under existing law. However concurrent with its passage the FBI stepped up activities and surveillance of the general community, particularly through the internet. Among their tactics is to seize offending computers or networks without warning. Again this is not new in terms of law, but new emphasis and freedom to do so. A major reason to do this is cyber warfare involving an outside entity hacking into a college network and then turning the network's resources towards a cyber attack on a government network or a financial/utility network that is viewed as threatening national security. Government response, shut down offending network and seize its assets until it all gets sorted out. So, Network supervisors are moving to really beef up security, firewalls, ability to track users and ability to proactively detect misuse of university Networks to prevent having it taken off line for months if the feds get a hair up their butts about some infraction.

Actually, this is not entirely correct. USM should have beefed up security, true. In addition, USM should (in order to comply with Patriot) have a way to track student, staff, and faculty information. Further, depending on how one interprets the Patriot Act, USM may have to allow fairly unrestricted access to such information OR to collect and store such information. Additionally, Patriot amends FERPA, FISA, and ECPA. Link to Cornell's IT explanation below:

http://www.cit.cornell.edu/oit/policy/PatriotAct/article.html Link