Common Systems Group (CSG)

 

October 25, 2005

Meeting Summary

 

 

CSG Attendees: Jim Davis, Tito Deveyra (for Jason Frand), Steve Duim, Bill Jepson, Carol King, Max Kopelevich, Kathleen O’Kane, Sean Pine, Vincent Riggs (for Tom Phelan), Terry Ryan, Ruth Sabean, Mike Schilling, Marsha Smith, David Snow, Eric Splaver, Kent Wada, Esther Woo-Benjamin, Don Worth

 

Guests: Joel Bellon (PDP Participant), Tom Trappler (OIT)

 

 

Agenda

 

1)   Introductions and Reports

 

·        Jim Davis introduced Joel Bellon, his Professional Development Program (PDP) mentee for this year. Joel will be attending future CSG meetings to learn about UCLA’s committee process.

 

·        On September 23, 2005, the Federal Communications Commission released an Order and Further Notice of Public Rule Making applying for the first time, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to facilities-based broadband Internet access providers, including higher education institutions. The Order requires institutions to facilitate lawful requests for surveillance of specific communications on their data networks – through a combination of new equipment, trained personnel, policies, and procedures that must be in place within 18 months. This would impose substantial new costs on the institutions involved and Educause (http://www.educause.edu) is taking the lead in trying to get an exemption for higher education institutions. For UCLA, this issue is being addressed by the Privacy Board.

 

2)   Technology Infrastructure Fee (TIF)

 

Beginning in July 2005, CTS changed how it charges for telephone service - separating the voice and technology components. A Technology Infrastructure Fee will be charged for a spectrum of “common good” IT Infrastructure services. Fiscal year 2005/06 will be a transitional year. Monthly TIF charges will be based on active phone lines as of the 2004 calendar year end. Full implementation of the TIF model is scheduled for July 2006 and will be based on an FTE model

 

Mike Schilling provided responses to the policy and governance questions raised by Jason Frand at the last meeting. The questions and responses are attached to the end of this meeting summary.

 

Mike Schilling and Marsha Smith will continue to meet with Deans and Vice Chancellors across campus to facilitate discussions on any questions or issues related to methodology or implementation of the TIF. 

 

3)   Low Voltage Wiring

 

Mike Schilling clarified some of the issues raised by Jason Frand at the last meeting. UCLA Policy 350: Telecommunications Systems Services is the policy that describes responsibilities of CTS and departments for the appropriate installation and business use of campus telecommunications systems, principal products and services, and ordering and billing mechanisms. This policy states that construction projects for the installation of low voltage wiring components for voice, data, video and fiber must be in compliance with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the UC Facilities Manual. It further states that CTS has the delegated authority for installing, maintaining and managing systems and platforms required to provide voice, data and video communications and all associated wiring components for the UCLA campus and to designated off-campus locations. Departments must consult with CTS for any changes to existing, or installation of new telecommunications wiring components.

 

Mike reviewed with the Group, the draft Cabling Work Order Process for projects under $85K. The CSG identified a need for the ability to complete smaller wiring projects on a frequent (daily or several times a week) and timely (almost immediate) basis. Departments with those kinds of requirements can go through a process to petition for a delegation award from VCs Sam Morabito and Pete Blackman.

 

Mike is creating a workgroup to help test the CTS Cabling Work Order Process flow for larger projects and develop Service Level Agreements (SLA). David Snow, Max Kopelevich, and Terry Ryan volunteered for the workgroup.

 

 

Meeting Schedule for Remainder of 2005:

 

Tuesday

November 22

2:00 – 4:00 p.m.

2121 Murphy

Tuesday

December 20

2:00 – 4:00 p.m.

2121 Murphy

 

 

TIF Issues and Questions

 

 

Implementation questions

 

1)      Is the TIF fee a monthly fee?

Answer: Yes

 

2)      Once the FTE TIF is introduced, will it be assessed as a multiple of payroll FTE (i.e. actual percent time worked) or will it be assessed as a multiple of EDB distribution FTE (expected time worked)?

 

Answer: We expect to follow the UCSD model where each month, FTE are re-calculated based on actual hours worked. This includes ALL FTE at an ORG/DEPT/ACCOUNT/FUND level. Please remember that UCSD uses knowledge worker FTE vs. FTE so there are differences in the rate and methodology. Overall, UCSD charges approximately $92 a month for voice and TIF services.  Given this rate, it does include many of the services included in the TIF for UCLA.

 

3)      In either option, on #2, there will usually be partial FTE as the sum. Will the TIF fee be prorated in that case or will the FTE be rounded to the nearest whole number?

 

Answer:  FTE are calculated on fractions. CITI and POSSSE have recommended it to support the many grant funded areas.

 

4)      Will the TIF be removed once a grant is closed?

 

Answer: For this year (FY 2005/06), it was approved that the TIF would be allocated to account/funds on an interim basis using lines. Clearly closed grant accounts represent a specific challenge. I have revisited this with POSSSE to determine if we can make an exception for closed grant accounts; the answer was yes. 

 

Policy & Governance questions

 

1)      What is the policy and associated procedure for determining which campus IT costs will be covered by the TIF?

 

Any recommendations will be via a campus governance process and subsequently vetted with CITI, ITPB and POSSSE.   

 

 

2)      How will the need for an increase (or decrease) in the TIF be determined and how will it be approved?

 

Answer: The CTS portion is approximately $13M and was approved as part of the FY 2005/06 POSSSE submission, following an 18 month review by CITI and ITPB. It is not expected at this time that beyond inflation and salary/benefit increases, that the CTS portion will increase. Additional funding requests for augmenting the TIF will be via the governance process described above and vetted with CITI, ITPB and POSSSE. 

 

3)      What is the procedure for soliciting input from Departments and Deans regarding the TIF?  Is there a faculty advisory board, for example?

 

The oversight of a committee is now being discussed.

 

4)      How will the campus be made aware of the annual expenditures against TIF revenue?

 

Answer: The expenditures are currently and will be further defined (within the context of transparency and full disclosure) on the monthly web billing statement.  I have handed out the samples to this group in the past.  We are very excited about the testing of the web billing and hope to come back to this group in the next 30 to 60 days for a demonstration of the web billing statement.