5/21 Regular BoT Meeting Post 6

Napolitano / Mazzocchi: More discussion of the costs of the weapons. Discussion of the cost of the program.

Brady — the cost of the programs are comparable to other programs.

Vote: Birt -no Mazoochi -no Napolitano -no. Motion passes.

Hamilton calls for motion on the requests for proposal for managed print services contract increase and online steps to enrollment software tool Items 7B3 a and b on the agenda. Keith Seitz and Ella Roberts, COD employees, present on the print management team, put together in August 2013. Objectives were to reduce costs while meeting needs of users. Team included Tom Glaser and Chuck Currier. with members from Purchasing and IT. Why consider new options? Because significant under-utilization of printers. Information security concerns. transition to digital from paper-based environment — while this was happening there was still an increase in paper. No comprehensive data base on which to make good decisions. The team researched options — continuing as we were, leasing, etc. Team determined that we move ahead to a managed print-service project. It is a holistic approach to managing print assets in an organization. Generally done by an external vendor. Ellen Roberts discusses the benefits of this managed print service system. Looking for full-accountability. The speakers discuss the process by which this vendor was chosen. 31 vendors were solicited, 10 responded. 3 were disqualified due to non-compliance to the RFP. 3 qualified candidates were invited to present proposals. Final proposals from Xerox, Canon and another were entertained. Xerox offered an 21% reduction of total cost of ownership. 20 hour per week on site technician. Reduced number of print assets from 655 to 275. Finally a bid for 3 million dollars for 5 years was presented to the BoT. Recommendation that the BoT approve an increase to the 5-year project.

Napolitano — why did the committee add 17 printers to the number that Xerox recommended? Keith Zeitz — user needs, distance, 50-75 feet is what we were looking for. We wanted faculty not have to walk more than one hallway segment in the BIC.

Mazzocchi- If you knew this why wasn’t that in the original design? Speakers comment on why the company’s design came in first, and then got feedback from users. Trustees question why the process happened as it did — with Xerox coming up with their estimate but the COD team making revisions to it. 700,000 dollar difference between the proposal and the new one. Trustees note that there is a material change to the proposal at this point.

VPAA Jean Kartje adds that Xerox’s proposal was not geared to an academic environment. She describes how faculty need to have closer access to printers when working in their offices. Xerox was not looking at how COD would use it differently from a corporate environment. Most of the additions were made by faculty need to do their job.

Mazzochi — Why wasn’t this faculty need part of it at the outset? That’s a problem. Faculty should have access to printers. I’m concerned with the change in the proposal. I’m concerned that the faculty were not consulted from the outset. It’s a breakdown in the process. So now we have a design that might actually be useful in the academic environment. Why didn’t we get faculty output form the beginning?  How do we know that if we did this over again we might not get a better proposal (after realizing what the faculty needs are).

Napolitano —  We are going from 192 to 325 print assets? That’s a big difference.

McGuire: As a teacher I know how important it is to have a copier near you when you need it. Are we more, less or about the same with paper dependency?

COD team — we use about 60 million sheets a year.

More discussion ensues about what COD needs are, for what types of devices, volume, etc.

Mazzocchi- clarifies that the cost is for leasing equipment, not purchasing it.

Napolitano– points out that Xerox actually won the bid for lower numbers, but they underestimated the number of units we needed, unlike the other bids.

Wozniak — We should table this because we do not have all the information we need.

Hamilton — asks for a second. Roll call on the motion to table:

McGuire — Did we just hear you say that we have a signed contract? With equipment already in place?

Mazzocchi– motion to table on the floor.


Wozniak — is this time sensitive? Can we wait?

COD team — we have already installed equipment , including library  regional centers. The contract was already approved by the previous BoT. What is in front of you now is the additional print assets?

The previous BoT approved a 3 million 5-year project with Xerox. Tonight we are just looking at the addition.

Motion to approve the addition. Roark — abstain. Bernstein — yes.Birt-abstain. MAzzochi — no. McGuire -yes. Napolitano — no. Wozniak — yes. Hamilton — no.

Motion fails.

Napolitano clarifies –116 additional assets. That’s what we are voting on. That is a 25%

Library — Dean of Library. Ellen Sutton asks to speak.

A number of exceptions are from my unit — library. Because  Xerox did not ask us about our workflow., They looked only at maps. They did not look at how people in the library use the printers. Process after process was ignored — we have asked for 40 exceptions. Just to do our work efficiently day by day.

Mazzocchi — were you just ignored by the administration during the design process?

Sutton — they did not talk to employees about that their processes were even though they sent people around. Those people did not talk to us. Most of what we want are inexpensive devices that are simple printers. It is my understanding that also the ones in faculty offices that are also exceptions are also simple black and white printers.

Trustee– Do you think the card readers are necessary?

Sutton- I am not in a position to comment on those. It would certainly be a learning curve for students to use them.

Bernstein — It’s one thing to look at the cost side of it. This is a complicated issue. It’s hard to understand it. At some point we just have to trust our people. There is a cost side to it but there is a side that has to do with the people and the productivity of the people here.

Roark — yes. Berstein-yes, Birt–no. Mazzochi –a reserved yes. McGuire yes. Napolitano – no. Wozniak yes. Hamilton yes.

Motion passes.

Motion to take a brief recess — Birt.

All in favor.

Meeting goes into recess.