In attendance
- Rick Adams, Public Affairs (RA)
- Jay Collier, Computing Services (JC)
- Karen Endicott, Thayer (attending for Catha Lamm) (KE)
- Bill Garrity, DMS (BG)
- David Gibson, Development Communications (DG)
- Martin Grant, Public Affairs (MG)
- Meg Houston Maker, Development Communications (MHM)
- Mary LaMarca, Library (attending for Cyndy Pawlek) (ML)
- Larry Levine, Computing Services (LML)
- Mary Liscinsky, Dean of the College Office (ML)
- Larry Litten, Provost/Institutional Research (LHL)
- Rita Murdoch, Computing Services (RM)
- Kevin O’Leary, General Counsel (KO)
- Roger Sloboda, Provost (RS)
- Paul Sunde, Admissions (PS)
- Bill Walker, Public Affairs (BW)
Not Available
- Jan Bent, Alumni Relations
- Kate Burke, Institutional Diversity & Equity
- Stan Colla, Alumni Relations
- Ted Cooley, Thayer School
- Sheila Culbert, President’s Office
- Donna Desjardins, Dean of Faculty
- Paul Gennaro, DMS
- Terry Keane, Audit
- David Lagomarsino, History
- Catha Lamm, Thayer School
- Cyndy Pawlek, Library
- Stan Pyc, Tuck
I. Opening Remarks - Bill Walker
Only two items on the agenda this morning: an update on the status of the home page redevelopment project and discussion of the revised Web oversight charter, which establishes a Web Executive Committee and a Web Advisory Committee. But first, I’ll ask Rick to bring us up to date on the home page project.
II. Web redevelopment update – Rick Adams
Brief update on Web redevelopment: meetings with student group, Issues Committee and with Council on Computing chair Tom Luxon. Content continues to be tweaked and revised, with launch now set for early summer term, since summer is typically the time when changes such as this occur. There will be one more opportunity for the WOC to see the changes before launch.
III. Web oversight charters and charges
(BW) - Over the past two years the oversight of the College’s Web presence has evolved from the original charter and charge, and this document – very much a draft – reflects an increased presence by the senior officers. It establishes a Web Executive Committee (WEC), to advise the President and the senior officers on strategic Web matters, and a Web Advisory Committee (WAC) which works with the WEC.
(LML) – The continuation of the Web Oversight Committee as an executive committee and an advisory committee allows us to move forward more consistently. It will give us some “traction” to have the groups working together.
(RS) – I notice that there is no representation on the executive committee from the professional schools. Why?
(BW)- There is a feeling that the oversight from the Provost would represent the professional schools. The Provost may not be active in the group at all times, but would be kept in the loop. The feeling is also that the WEC needs to be kept smaller, and therefore more nimble.
(BG) – Should the professional schools be autonomous, then?
(RS) – We want them to conform to standards, but sometimes the professional schools do their own thing. We should decide consciously whether to include or exclude them from the WEC.
(LML) – I disagree. The professional schools fall along a continuum of the full institution. Just because they’re not represented on the WEC, doesn’t make them autonomous. We want consistency of style, in systems, etc. Should we then issue a list of “thou shalts” for Dartmouth’s Web sites?
(RS) – without an overarching committee to look at all aspects of institutional conformity, we wind up with some sites that don’t work well.
(BW) – If the professional schools are represented on the advisory committee, and if the advisory committee works with the WEC as being advisory to the President and the President’s Executive Committee, does that combination get at the issue?
(RS) – We need some bottleneck through which these things are looked at.
(BG) – As far as representation of the professional schools, we don’t operate in a total silo. Paul Gennaro, the medical school’s Web Architect, is a part of the Web Producers’ Group which represents people from around the institution.
(RS) – But there’s still no top-down authority.
(BG) – I think this is a non-issue. The professional schools’ Web sites are active and robust. I’d suggest that it’s the arts & sciences sites that need to step up.
(RS) - There should be a representative from each professional school – from the DMS point of view, we feel marginalized. Example: professional schools have their own computing folks and don’t necessarily feel part of the college presence.
(BW) – Are there any parallels in other areas that have the level of representation you’re talking about?
(LML) – ACOS, the Administrative Computing Oversight Subcommittee is one example.
(ML) – We can discuss this and we can talk about recommendations for representation on the WEC, but to whom are we making the recommendation?
(BW) - Bill to discuss with President and Provost on how best to determine/decide on the structure of the Web Advisory Committee.
(RM) - Is part of the VP for Public Affairs responsibility the oversight of the college web presence and does that include the professional schools?
(BW) - Yes, to some degree the web presence is my responsibility and it is inclusive of the professional schools.
(LHL) – I notice there is no representation from the faculty
(RA NOTE: DEAN OF THE FACULTY OFFICE WAS INADVERTANTLY LEFT OFF THE LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE WEB ADVISORY COMMITTEE. OFFICE WILL BE ADDED IN NEXT DRAFT OF DOCUMENT)
(RM) - Perhaps the Provost should represent the professional schools – or having the Dean of Faculty at the PEC level?
(RS) - That’s even worse for the professional schools to include the Dean of Faculty and not the Dean of the med school, Tuck, or Thayer.
(RS) - So far as the WAC is concerned, the student reps also don’t include professional school students.
(JC) – Has the WEC bought into this? What authority does it have in this configuration, and what resources can it bring to the process?
(BW) – There is a simultaneous review process going on, and the WEC members have just received this draft. As for resources, as the President’s Executive Committee thinks about priorities across the campus, the question of resources always comes up.
(LML) – In essence, the WEC feeds the PEC, and advises the President and the PEC on resource matters.
(LHL) – There needs to be some structure under which each division that deals with Web matters relating to that area. Perhaps a recommendation from the Web Advisory Committee could be to establish that.
(BW) – One question is still how much can be accomplished by the WAC?
(LHL) – I think the group is too big. We need to encourage more local conversations.
(LML) – The WAC and the WEC are steps forward and the process can work like Computing Services, which helps offices make decisions.
(MHM) – Back to the question of governance: I’m concerned about the WAC’s ability to advise upwards. Larry Litten’s ideas might work to help determine working groups within each division so that this makes sense institutionally.
(JC) – We need to agree on the responsibility for strategic decisions. Last year Web Publishing Services devoted almost a full FTE to working on tactical implementations. What’s the best way to get the strategic work done, and where does it best live? We need some mechanism for implementation and resource.
(BW) – One way or another, we need to address the resource question. But we need to get back to the question of the advisory group. Is the idea of smaller sub-groups a good one?.
(JC) – There’s still the resource question: what does this group (WAC) do?
(BW) – I’m hoping for a structure that enables us to capture the best thinking around the College about the Web, and what’s the best way to enable that
(MHM) – On a super-practical level: this group is scheduled to meet once per term. We can’t get much done that way … we need smaller groups to do specialized work.
(BW) – We’re trying to establish a bottom-up process, where the decisions are based on the work of the advisory group.
(RA) – Once governance is established, the WAC should develop the small group structure.
(JC) – Should the charge then include some mention of subcommittee work and resource needs? Exactly how much time would we be talking about?
(BW) – We need to acknowledge that there will be some subcommittee work, but I don’t want to commit to any set number of hours.
(JC) – What about various other groups, like the Web Producers’ Group, the Web Developers, or the Communications Committee?
(BW) – Should there be some formalized communication between the WAC and these various groups?
(JC) – Web developers and producers groups don’t have formal charters – their interest in working with the WAC would probably be more issue by issue.
(MHM) – There is a discovery process for any initiative. On the other side of that shiny coin, the WEC need to communicate specifically what the strategic goals are. And how does that information get disseminated?
(BW) – The WEC needs to focus on the big questions. Then through a series of joint meetings and regular communications, get that word out.
(LML) – The WEC needs to communicate more effectively what their goals are – are they trying to just educate themselves on issues (portals, blogs, etc.) WEC members are not as savvy, in some cases, as members of the current WOC – the last meeting of the WEC used to educate them and a demo was done on portals.
(JC) – Could that presentation be given to both the PEC and current WOC? It might be a good way to combine the groups and have them meet.
(BW) – that shouldn’t be a problem.
(MHM) - Looking at other institutions, some schools have a CIO to make some of these decisions – is Dartmouth heading that way vs. decision by committee?
(LML) - There are advantages to that structure, but we still need the benefit of committee discussion.
(BW) – Perhaps we should look at the function of the WAC and what their work would be. Bill, Rita, Rick, Jay, and Larry will discuss at their regular meeting.
(KE) – The more I think about the discussion, the more I feel that the professional schools should have their own reps and not be represented by the Provost. The cultures and needs are so different and the college could gain knowledge of what the professional schools need.
(PS) – There is already some work that the WAC can address. But we can’t know what the future for this group holds. We might need to shift the charge again in another 12-18 months, so we need to be flexible. We have a body of people ready to serve, but many functions are task-specific.
(BW) – We’ll want to review the priorities list that the Producers’ Group developed last year, to see if it needs updating.
(JC) – We should also investigate and clarify the principles and goals for these groups.
(RS) – One last thing: there is no representation from the Arts & Sciences graduate programs.
Meeting adjourned at 11:15; There is not another meeting scheduled at this time.
|
