In response to an employee outcry over the first draft of a new computer use policy, a Foothill-De Anza District subcommittee held a public meeting on Jan. 22 to release and discuss a revised version.
The policy, a statement of rules and regulations to control inappropriate use of all district-owned computer and communication systems, collectively referred to as the “District Network,” is based upon the principle that the network is “the sole property of the District, which for that reason [the District] has and retains complete and sole authority over the terms and conditions of its use.” The subcommittee, the Educational Technology Advisory Committee, is reviewing the policy.
Inappropriate uses of the network, which includes voicemail, e-mail, telephone and the Internet, are defined as those that interfere with “intended use” of the network. For employees, intended uses consist of “those which are reasonable and necessary for the pursuit of job duties,” and for students, “those which are reasonable and necessary for the pursuit of instructional activities.”
Specific network activities targeted by the policy include unauthorized access to computer accounts, e-mail forgery, displaying or transmitting obscene material, placing excessive loads on the network, use of the network to harass or threaten others, and unauthorized commercial use.
“As we’re sharing the network, inappropriate actions by one or two people could bring the entire place to a halt. That’s what we want to prevent,” said subcommittee member and De Anza librarian Judy Mowrey.
After the initial release of the policy in the fall, staff and faculty members expressed concerns over the policy’s deficiencies and set into motion a process of revisions in an attempt to assuage the most widely held concerns.
These concerns included an objection to the policy requiring faculty and staff to sign the document before using any part of the network. According to subcommittee chairperson Willie Pritchard these employees argued that no other board policy required signatures and brought up the issue of requiring staff and faculty to sign, but not students.
Greg Druehl, political science instructor, said, “I think a lot of [faculty and staff] were insulted that they would suggest that we would have to sign, ‘You’re liable,’ ‘Sign here and we’ll check if you’re good boys and girls,’ and ‘We’re going to spy on you, and if [not] we can go after you and eliminate you.'”
In the revised draft, the signature requirement has been eliminated. Mowrey said, “I think [faculty and staff] were uncomfortable with the document itself.”
There was also concern about the privacy of employees or students using the network. However, the subcommittee refused to revise the document’s privacy regulations, stating that they, “could not, and [would] not, change ‘no expectation of privacy,'” and that instead they would offer more information and training about privacy to network users.
“It is a district owned network and by that nature, we cannot guarantee privacy,” said Pritchard.
“The issue of confidentiality applies to everybody. Students working in a lab should be aware that their work is not necessarily private,” said Mowrey.
Druehl, though, sees it differently. “I think there’s been a serious mistake treating people as if they were criminals or potential criminals,” he said.
When faculty members expressed worry over the monitoring of networks, Pritchard answered, “[We] know that monitoring individual computers is wrong,” explaining that the network will be monitored to ensure continuous operation and not to track individuals.
“There won’t be a new set of enforcement rules,” said Mowrey. “If there is a violation and people are made aware of that violation, then it will be dealt with in the regular channels of dealing with student discipline.”
Another pervading concern was the impact of the policy on academic freedom. However, again the subcommittee decided against making revisions based on this, after they “determined that nothing in the policy interferes with academic freedom.”
“I don’t think it will impact classroom situations,” said Mowrey. “We know that this is an educational institution, so we did try to protect academic freedom.”
However, staff members such as Phyllis Garrison were not completely satisfied with this decision. At the Jan. 22 meeting, she asked, “What about students doing research for a human sexuality class? How will they be dealt with?” The subcommittee responded to this by proposing the possible need for a separate policy for teachers and students.
Other major concerns dealt with weak wording and unclear definitions in the document itself. These were strengthened and clarified in the revision.
“The new draft seems to have satisfied nearly every group. It’s really there to protect all of us,” said Mowrey.
Following another revision based on the recent public meeting, if the policy is reviewed and passed by ETAC in late February and approved by the Chancellor’s Advisory Council in late March, the final draft will be presented to the School Board in April. If approved, the policy will take effect soon afterward.
The current computer use policy, most recently revised in 1997, was found to be inadequate by auditors, citing that there was “not sufficient notification to employees about computer use policy,” according to Pritchard. The subcommittee formed in the winter of 2002.
Lacking any regulations for computer networks, the current policy is technologically behind, said Mowrey. “It doesn’t address the kind of situation we’re in today, in this open-computing environment, where we’re all sharing resources.”
the issue of requiring staff and faculty to sign, but not students.
Greg Druehl, political science instructor, said, “I think a lot of [faculty and staff] were insulted that they would suggest that we would have to sign, ‘You’re liable,’ ‘Sign here and we’ll check if you’re good boys and girls,’ and ‘We’re going to spy on you, and if [not] we can go after you and eliminate you.'”
In the revised draft, the signature requirement has been eliminated. Mowrey said, “I think [faculty and staff] were uncomfortable with the document itself.”
Concern was expressed about employees and students privacy when using the network. However, the subcommittee refused to revise the document’s privacy regulations, stating they, “could not, and [would] not, change ‘no expectation of privacy,'” and that instead they would offer more information and training about privacy to network users.
“It is a district owned network and by that nature, we cannot guarantee privacy,” said Pritchard.
“The issue of confidentiality applies to everybody. Students working in a lab should be aware that their work is not necessarily private,” said Mowrey.
Druehl, though, sees it differently. “I think there’s been a serious mistake treating people as if they were criminals or potential criminals,” he said.
When faculty members expressed concern over the monitoring of networks, Pritchard said, “[We] know that monitoring individual computers is wrong,” explaining that the network will be monitored to ensure continuous operation and not to track individuals.
“There won’t be a new set of enforcement rules,” said Mowrey. “If there is a violation and people are made aware of that violation, then it will be dealt with in the regular channels of dealing with student discipline.”
Another pervading concern was the impact of the policy on academic freedom. However, again the subcommittee decided against making revisions based on this, after they “determined that nothing in the policy interferes with academic freedom.”
“I don’t think it will impact classroom situations,” said Mowrey. “We know that this is an educational institution, so we did try to protect academic freedom.”
However, staff members such as Phyllis Garrison were not completely satisfied with this decision. At the Jan. 2
2 meeting, she asked, “What about students doing research for a human sexuality class? How will they be dealt with?” The subcommittee responded to this by proposing the possible need for a separate policy for staff and students.
Other major concerns dealt with weak wording and unclear definitions in the document itself. These were strengthened and clarified in the revision.
“The new draft seems to have satisfied nearly every group. It’s really there to protect all of us,” said Mowrey.
Following another revision based on the recent public meeting, if the policy is reviewed and passed by ETAC in late February and approved by the Chancellor’s Advisory Council in late March, the final draft will be presented to the School Board in April. If approved, the policy will take effect soon afterward. The current computer use policy, most recently revised in 1997, was found to be inadequate by auditors, citing that there was “not sufficient notification to employees about computer use policy,” said Pritchard. The subcommittee formed in the winter of 2002.
Lacking any regulations for computer networks, the current policy is technologically behind, said Mowrey. “It doesn’t address the kind of situation we’re in today, in this open-computing environment, where we’re all sharing resources.”
The Internet Use Policy’s latest draft is under “Policies” at http://ets.fhda.edu.
ETAC Policy Proposal
The inappropriate materials proposal applies to voice mail, e-mail, telephone and the Internet. Inappropriate network activities include:
* displaying or transmitting obscenity or pornography
* unauthorized commercial use
e-mail forgery
* unauthorized access to computer accounts
* placing excessive loads on the network
* downloading a program intended to damage or overload on a
* computer system or network (including viruses, Trojan horses
and worms)
* using the telephone, e-mail or voice mail to harass others
* violating software licensing agreements or copyright laws
