Present: Committee Members - M. Morrison, D. Miller, W. Morrison, and S. Heinrich; School Board liaison - J. Flis; Members of the Technology Committee; Members of the Town Cable Committee; and representatives from Lucent Technology.
Excused: T. Koenig
S. Heinrich called the meeting to order at 8 P.M. He turned the meeting over to S. Isabelle who explained that the purpose of the meeting was to share the newest network proposal from Lucent Technology with the committee and receive feedback. After the proposal is perfected, it will be presented to the School Board.
Representatives from Lucent Technology presented the revised proposal in detail using an informational packet and several visual aids. They indicated that, together with the partnet company, Data Communication, they had put together a conceptual design to meet the district's technology plan. They explained they needed more specific data about what the district had and what the district wanted so they could refine the design. They indicated that Mastricola Middle School would be the hub of the plan. The plan for each school, the Superintendent's office and the Special Services offices along with services/capabilities of the system were presented. These included a T-1 line used to reach the Ferry schools, video-conferencing, and Internet access.
During the discussion, the following issues were raised. J. Flis wanted to know if the overall plan could be done in stages. S. Heinrich wanted to know what the rationale was for using the middle school as the hub. S. Isabelle explained the reasons included available space, central location and two schools in the same place. S. Heinrich asked about the space needs for the hub equipment and the network capability between classrooms in all schools. There is a potential for 1,500 "drops". Should each classroom be hooked up? J. Flis suggested using different wire in different rooms and factoring in the need for Internet access. The types of routers and switches were discussed in regard to security, flexibility and ability to segment the network. It was suggested that the amount of traffic the network faced would double approximately every four months. The proposed plan could be scaled as needed and should include future expansion potential. W. Morrison also suggested that the plan be tempered in light of the fact that technology is rapidly changing. A potential problem concerning sufficient phone lines was raised. Another question raised was the impact of the new town cable contract on this plan. A member of the cable committee asked about lease versus purchase options. There were comments about the size of cabling and type of hardware in relation to cost versus expected life/use. J. Flis requested a school by school breakdown of the plan (cost and capability) as well as a cost for the basic network versus cost for the entire project. There are numerous redundancies built into the plan. W. Morrison also wants to know how the network would be managed. S. Heinrich asked for explanation of partnership agreement. He was told that Lucent installs the network and provides the warranty service. Further, Lucent would provide a network engineer or other technical assistance for problem resolution. S. Heinrich thanked the Lucent team for their presentation.
After the Lucent team left, discussion continued. W. Morrison was concerned that the plan presented was essentially the same as the first plan that Lucent had presented and that the Technology Committee had asked them to scale back. There were many concerns about the cost and plan being more than the district wants or needs. Services and equipment provided by the new town's cable contracter, Heron, need to be researched. Can the district network plan be tied in with cable; can Heron work with Lucent? In addition, potential costs that might have to be added to the FY1999-2000 need to be determined as soon as possible. S. Heinrich suggested that the Technology Committee identify what the basic components of the plan that would be needed first. It was suggested that the district wants a good base infrastructure which is both long term and high speed first. Infrastructure was defined as wiring and hubs, but not including servers. (D. Miller left the meeting during this discussion.) There were questions about the potential savings of buying the hardware only and having Merrimack staff/residents/NetDay volunteers install it. S. Heinrich suggested a capital reserve fund or expendable trust be established for technology needs. It was also suggested that any plan presented to the School Board and/or the general public be written in simple terms, limiting the amount of "computereze". M. Chiafery stated that marketing needs to happen twice as much as planning. W. Morrison expressed dismay that Lucent appeared not to be listening to the district requests to scale back the original network plan presented. By concensus it was decided to revisit the issue at the committee's next meeting on December 8.
On a motion from M. Morrison, seconded by W. Morrison, it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning & Building Committee
Merrimack School District
Last Updated: July 11, 1999 by Wayne Morrison