Present: W. Morrison, C. Morrison, M. Morrison and members of the Technology Committee. T. Koenig, S. Heinrich and School Board liaison P. McGrath arrived late.

W. Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.

W. Morrison indicated the main order of business was a meeting with members of the Technology Committee. He turned the meeting over to Assistant Superintendent Marge Chiafery who introduced the members of the committee who were present: Matt Shevenell - District Business Administrator, Pam Tinker - Director of Library/Media Services, John Tsoukalas - District System Manager, Mark Merrifield - MHS, Dorinda Gibney - R/8 Computer Coordinator, Laurel Sumner - MMS, Tracey Wyman - MES, Kevin Fitzgerald - Network Consultant, Linda Garstang - MMS and Jim Flis - Community Liaison.

M. Chiafery thanked the PBC for allowing the Technology Committee to use the PBC as a sounding board for the various technology expenditures that are being presented for consideration at the 2001 School District meeting. She told the PBC that each school has internet access. She indicated that upgrading the student information system and targeted purchases for each school will be part of the operating budget and there will be a separate warrant article for a Wide Area Network (WAN). She provided a quick overview of the work of the technology committee as it has worked with vendors and the town cable committee to upgrade the district computer network.

P. Tinker told the PBC that the Inet has been put into all classrooms except at MHS. There is a cable drop in each classroom. The plan is to get a cable modem at all schools. The Mastricola complex has one. The date for installation at MHS is set. There has been no cost to the district thus far.

J. Flis asked about using Verizon for cable access as Aldephia Business Solutions is not scheduled for New Hampshire until 2002-2003.

L. Garstang, M. Merrifield and D. Gibney gave an overview of current hardware at each of the district schools.

K. Fitzgerald explained the proposed WAN. He discussed the controls and security for the system. He told the committee there would be a separate domain for each school and the system provides for interdomain transfer of data. He indicated that the WAN would enhance overall student learning by allowing access to the internet and access to district information as available.

W. Morrison asked about keeping the VAX system and the possibility of integrating with "PathWorks" for PC access to mainframe data. M. Fitzgerald said the district would use the operating system provided by the vendors which is "6.2".

M. Chiafery indicated the Technology Committee emphasis on school equity and staff training. She further indicated that wiring is important.

J. Flis asked about services and built-in redundancies. M. Fitzgerald explained that the higher use services would have redundancies but lower services do not.

W. Morrison asked if the system would provide networking capabilities between all district facilities.

M. Shevenell presented the Student Information System which be included in the district operating budget. The approximate cost is $177,800. The plan is to have the hub at MHS. M. Shevenell explained that Jaffrey already has this system and Bedford will be installing it soon. P. McGrath arrived during this discussion.

M. Morrison asked about the security of the system. Both J. Flis and K. Fitzgerald explained the security is only as good as the firewalls installed within the system.

P. McGrath asked if the faculty will be able to access the system off site. W. Morrison asked if the system will be using the existing fibers between MHS and MMS rather than installing a new line.

K. Fitzgerald told the PBC the plan presented provides a most cost effective solution to upgrading the system, but the Technology Committee is open to additional suggestions that might reduce the cost.

M Chiafery explained that the last area the Technology Committee focused on are actual site requests which will be included in the operating budget at a total of $150,000. She asked each school level to explain their specific needs.

D. Gibney and T. Wyman explained that the goal at the elementary level is to a presentation system (overhead monitor, projector and computer) in each classroom. They will be doing this in a phase in plan over three years purchasing seven systems per school for two years and then six the last.

W. Morrison asked about the added electrical cost. M. Shevenell explained this has been included in the operating budget.

L Garstang explained that at the middle school currently has three presentation systems per cluster and the plan is to have one per classroom phased in similarly to the elementary plan. There was extensive discussion about the teaching and educational benefits to the presentation systems. There was also discussion about including wiring and equipment costs in the new middle school plans.

M. Merrifield explained at the high school the need is for a computer center attached to the library which will be available for teachers to bring their classes or for students who are in the library during a study. It will consist of 31 (30 student and 1 teacher) computers linked to the internet. S. Heinrich and T. Koenig arrived during this discussion.

W. Morrison thanked the Technology Committee for presenting their plans to the PBC and commended them for their thoroughness and for the improvements made to previous LAN plans.

M. Chiafery offered to spend a few minutes reviewing the issues presented to T. Koenig and S. Heinrich as they had missed most of the meeting.

During this discussion, the following additional information was discussed: A T1 line is needed because of the number of students and to meet the specifications for the updated equipment. Cisco is the network certification program. There is $40,000 in the budget for training 1 manager and the computer support staff to keep up and maintain the system. W. Morrison commented that the cost to maintain an initially less expensive program is often prohibitive.

PBC members briefly discussed meeting days and dates for future meetings. The concensus was to try to have a meeting on December 11 and discuss a future meeting schedule at that time.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M.

Last Updated: March 17, 2001 by Wayne Morrison