North Seattle Community College

College Council Meeting

December 4th, 2007

Convened: Matt Ayer, Council Chair, convened the meeting at 3:07pm

Attendance: Matt Ayer, Simone Church, Deanna Li, Ryan Packard, Therese Quig, Chris Wiederhold, Betty Williams

Guests: Alan Ward, Bruce Kieser

Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the November 6, 2007 meeting were approved with no corrections or additions.

New Key Policy: Alan and Bruce reported that enforcement is the most difficult aspect to a key policy. Because it is illegal for the college to garner wages or withhold paychecks, under the new system, divisions will be charged for lost keys in the hopes that they will more closely monitor the distribution of keys.

Bruce stated that an electronic key system to control building access would be cost prohibitive and presents many of the same shortcomings as keys: cards can be lost or stolen and are sometimes unreliable. The Council suggested that lost or stolen electronic keys could be deactivated to deny access, but Bruce stated that administration of such a campus wide computerized system would not be cost effective. Cascadia Community College, Central Washington University, and Seattle Central Community College were all consulted regarding the electronic key card systems; however, no cost analysis was done for this system at NSCC. In a new building, electronic keys may be feasible, but that retrofitting doors in current facilities with wiring alone could cost $4K per door. Due to interconnecting hallways and classrooms with multiple doors, outfitting even just the outside doors is not currently cost-effective.

Bruce explained the makeup and responsibilities of the Key Advisory Group (KAG) and its evolving role in the new key policy and the policy’s ongoing refinement. This group, whose members have not yet been determined, will consist of classified staff, faculty, and students. (NOTE: The Key Advisory Group is apparently different from the Key System Advisory Group mentioned in the policy document; the KSAG consists of the FacOps director, VP for Admin, campus locksmith, maintenance supervisor, and reps of the other two VPs, and does not include any other staff, faculty, or students. It was the KSAG, not the KAG, which made the initial determination to proceed with the new Medeco system.) The KAG working in conjunction with the campus must develop a balance between convenience and security. This balance will be assessed by KAG and adjusted to meet the needs of individual departments. The KAG will work in conjunction with Deans and supervisors to determine which doors should be keyed alike to give access to multiple areas, which faculty and staff will receive that access, and how often those keys will be collected for reevaluation and/or reassignment.

The key system is being updated for security reasons rather than to stem losses from theft.

Periodic audits will be conducted by the new fulltime locksmith position that has been created to ensure that keys are assigned and possessed by the appropriate people. Facilities employees were sent to Medeco, the vendor, to receive special training in our new system, which has been purchased. The locksmith position has been created and applications are currently being reviewed. The process for administering the keys is still being developed.

The council expressed concern that a decision on the type of system had already been made without campus input, prior to finalizing the specific details regarding administration and the policy itself.

Therese expressed similar concerns outlined in a memo from SDS Council, which noted:

The Policy document as written includes a great deal of procedural data, making it difficult to approve. If procedural elements are still being determined, the Policy document should not yet be approved in its current form.

For the sake of transparency, it would be helpful to share the cost analysis that was conducted to compare other types of systems.

How many other companies/systems were considered?

There is a perception that the two departments with the most access are responsible for the previous loss, but Bruce assured the council that lost keys are system-wide and that no specific departments are at fault.

Will priority and/or enhanced security be given to offices/buildings with sensitive materials (Financial Aid, Testing, etc)?

Facilities, Security, and IT will be the only offices with access to master keys. These keys will not leave campus and can only be accessed through a biometric (thumbprint) key box. Off-hours workers will have evaluated access to sub- or building master keys.

The locksmith will be full-time because even after the entire campus is re-keyed, the locksmith will be in charge of replacement re-keying, annual key audits, and assigning new keys and collecting the old.

The new key system will be at least partially funded by a state grant.

No recommendation will be crafted until the various faculty and staff who have expressed individual concerns have been contacted by Council members.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 4:45pm

Minutes prepared by Ryan Packard