Meeting Minutes
10:00 a.m. January 10, 2012
Room 412, College of Business Building
Present:Barb Blake, Andrea Ballinger, Rob Blemler, Mike Davis, Deb Smitley, Dwayne Sackman, Dan Holland, Jon Rosenthal, Mark Walbert, Larry Lyons, Greg Alt, Matthew Helm, Scott D. Johnson, Wendy Smith, Jill Jones, Dane Ward, Khris Clevenger, and Maureen Peel.
Absent: Lisa Huson and Sam Catanzaro
- Welcome and Announcements - There were no announcements.
- Notes from November 2011 and December Meetings - No changes identified.
- Sponsored Project Status Updates
- Commitment Accounting—Mike Davis reported this is going to go over a week or two beyond the planned date due to several issues. They are working with vendors to look deeper into how to do the necessary work.
- Additional Pay (New Pay) —Mike stated he doesn’t envision this being a huge effort. Sheri Everts and Dan Layell identified this as a high risk for the Provost Office. It involves an additional approval loop and is solely intended for the Provost Office.
Deb Smitley asked if there were any other types of projects like this (high visibility but haven’t reach the priority list yet). Work on the additional pay functionality in iPeople involved a number of people, yet this approval step wasn’t identified earlier.Obviously, this change to the additional pay functionality is important work that needs to be done. However, what needs to be done to identify these types of priorities earlier to allow them to be a part of the prioritization processes established by the Stewardship Council?
- Prioritization among iPeople and Budget Wizard
iPeople--Mike led a discussion of the handout which showed the prioritization review of sixteen projects related to iPeople and Budget Wizard. The projects were identified by the Payroll Office, Human Resources and the Budget Office.
Project 722 (programming for payroll deductions for 403(b) Roth deductions and transfer to TIAA-CREF) is the highest priority from a business impact.
Project 718 (benefits custom leaves page) is bubbling to the surface as some employees are not able to see accrualinformation. Union negotiators are looking at this. From an HR standpoint, this is one that should be looked at.
The state will soon require electronic submission of 457 (state’s deferred compensation plan) enrollments and deductions. Anyone currently participating, as well as future participants, may be affected. There are a relatively small number of people currently participating at the University.
From the payroll side, the most pressing project is the payroll calendar (Project 790).
Budget Wizard—Project 782 – build your budget page- needs to be completed no later than April in order to set budgets for the coming fiscal year. No other Budget Wizard projects are time critical. Project 787 is a pre-requisite for 782. There are a small number of users, but for those having Foundation money, it is a high priority. Other things on list are functionalities that people have been told will be available in the future. Commitment Field and Foundation funds are projects that should be addressed next.
Barb Blake stated the Commitment Field has changed in scope since first considered. Shesaid it would be nice to have it working in early 2013. As for Foundation funds, while there are a small number of users, there is a significant amount of money involved. Users, however, will not be doing such things as expenditures and transfers as those will continue to be done through Agresso.
It was noted there is a need to look at the criteria and questions being asked. In the real
process, users will be asked questions. Stewards provided the information for this analysis.
Mike stated he doesn’t know whether the number of existing staff or appropriate
resources are available to execute the middle of the road projects.
- New Business
The Council endorsed the following two projects, for which the business case documents were prepared and included in the agenda materials:
- Electronic Health Record and Clinical Information System
- Electronic Door Access – Data Retrieval
- Data Classification
A draft of data listed as critical was distributed to the Council for its consideration; this is the initial step in developing a classification system for University data. This is in response to an audit issue that stated that the University does not have policies or procedures in place that define confidential data. “Critical data”are numbers, characters, images or other forms of output that are protected by federal or state law, federal or state regulation(s), or if the University is required to self-report to the federal or state government and/or the individual if the data are inappropriately accessed.
There was discussion of whether university IDs and student restricted data should be added to this list. Wendy Smith indicated she didn’t believe university IDs should be included and student restricted data would fall into the limited category. Dwayne Sackman noted that a few items were listed twice on the list. Deb indicated that each item should only be listed once; this will be corrected on documents made public.The Council endorsed the classification of the critical data items as presented in the agenda materials (with the understanding that the list would be amended to exclude duplicate items).
1