1. Introduction

The Advisory Committee On Educational Technology Fees [ACETF] is charged with the responsibility of soliciting, evaluating, recommending, monitoring, and annually assessing allocation of funds collected from the implementation of a student tuition fee surcharge supporting augmented student access to educational technologies on the UWM campus. The following policies and procedures stipulate the procedural processes members of the ACETF will use in discharging the committee’s various obligations. The final authority, and responsibility, for the appropriate expenditure of fee surcharge revenues rests with UWM campus administration. The committee’s role is to initiate and guide the process of decision- making, significantly contribute to decisions, and monitor and report on the consequences of decisions that are implemented. Committee responsibilities are subsumed under two broad categories of action: recommendations on funds allocation, and accountability assessment of dispersed funds. Each category requires separate activity cycles defined by coherent procedures guiding committee actions.

2. Fund Allocation

2.1 Overview
The process of funds allocation involves budgeting, solicitation, evaluation, and recommendation of proposals submitted by the UWM campus community regarding the creation or expansion of access to educational technologies for the student body. The primary goal underlying the expenditure of surcharge fee revenue is to facilitate creating and/or expanding opportunities for students to use technological innovations instrumental in acquiring, processing, and applying information consistent with their educational needs.While this goal can be reached through various paths, the overarching priority for the expenditure of surcharge revenues is demonstrable breadth and depth of impact on the student body that is afforded through any given use of the funds. In general, the allocation of surcharge revenues is inappropriate for funding (in whole or part): new structures, renovation or routine remodeling of existing structures, the creation or upgrading (sic. modernization) of specialized facilities, and/or the acquisition of equipment used in providing unitary programs, or subprograms, of studies supported by a single department, school, college, or interdisciplinary unit.
2.2 Solicitation of Proposals
The Provost/Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the committee, will annually solicit (in the fall term) proposals from the UWM community (administrative, faculty, and student groups) for educational technology projects. Proposals should be submitted on the UWM Educational Technology Projects Form A Project Request Form.
2.3 Submission of Proposals

2.3.1 Proposal format
Proposals should be submitted on the UWM Educational Technology Projects Form A Project Request Form and include the following:

I. Project Description. A clear and complete narrative that describes the type of project and how it will be implemented.
II. Expenditures. A complete budget summary table based on information provided in item IV. Describe equipment requirement, item V. Describe remodeling and installation requirements, and item VI Describe personnel duties.
III. How the project improves student access to technology. Must include specific arguments/evidence on need, urgency, and extent of impact on student body.
IV. Equipment requirements. A description and itemized list of all equipment expenditures.
V. Remodeling and installation requirements. A description of all remodeling and installation needs and an itemized listing of their costs.
VI. Personnel duties. A description of all personnel duties and a basis for their cost calculation.
VII. Needs of students with disabilities. Proposals shall include a written plan explaining how the technology will be made equally accessible to students with disabilities. Proposals for which this consideration may not be applicable will require a statement of justification detailing why the technology will not need to be made equally effective for students with disabilities. The Committee will evaluate both the written plan for intent and the statement of justification for project appropriateness. When the justification is in question, the Committee shall confer with the UWM ADA Coordinator.
VIII. Timetable. A brief timetable that outlines the milestones of the project should include, where appropriate, the time frames for ordering hardware and software, installing hardware and software, and a starting date for the delivery of service to students.
IX. Maintenance/upgrades. This item must include an estimate of the longevity of the project and its impact; identification of the unit assuming responsibility for maintaining oversight authority for the project; and the long-term financial implications and responsibility for the project’s maintenance and upgrades.
X. Project Assessment: All implemented proposals must be assessed to gauge the fidelity of their impact. A standard assessment cycle of up to five (5) years is required of all proposals. Proposals not intended to have impacts of maximum duration must stipulate so in their rationale and be justified with respect to their length of impact. The unit charged with the responsibility of implementing a supported project must submit an annual UWM Educational Technology Projects Form B Project Assessment Report (see Accountability/Assessment section 3, pg. 4).

2.3.2 Multi-year proposals
If funds are being requested for a multi-year project, each item on Form A should include an annual breakdown that clearly identifies the expenditures, project goals, and assessment for each of the proposed project years. Please note that due to the desire to not commit funds beyond the current funding cycle, multi-year projects are less likely to be viewed favorably by the committee.

2.3.3 Requests for continued support of funded projects.
Units requesting funding for continued support of previously funded projects must submit an interim report detailing the current status of the project, why additional funding is being sought, and any other information that will assist the committee in determining if additional funding is warranted.

2.4 Evaluation of Proposal
The committee’s evaluation of proposals for funding is made in the context of projected revenues available for disbursement in the subsequent academic year. As a rule-of-thumb, the committee does not recommend funding projects in excess of 90 percent of estimated funds available for the subsequent academic year. However, the committee may make secondary recommendations for project funding at the end of a budget year based on final revenue accounting information.The committee reviews proposals during the spring term of each academic year. All proposals are distributed to committee members in advance of meeting and making recommendations to the Provost/Vice Chancellor on its preferences.

Members evaluate proposals on four dimensions: compliance with defined appropriateness, technological need, campus impact, and operational efficacy. The committee may decide to conduct preliminary evaluation and assessment ratings of proposals in advance of meeting to deliberate and prioritize proposals. Proposals deemed inappropriate are excluded from consideration. All remaining proposals are ranked according to a majority vote of committee members’ preferences for those proposals.

2.5 Evaluation Report and Approval
The committee forwards a report of its evaluation of all proposals to the Provost/Vice Chancellor. While it is understood the Provost/Vice Chancellor will make a final decision on the disposition of proposals, the committee acts as a significant source of input into that decision. The Provost/Vice Chancellor is expected to consult with the committee on deviations between the Provost/Vice Chancellor’s and committee’s decisions regarding either the final approval or level of funding for proposals prior to the commitment of funds to any project or purpose.

The Provost/Vice Chancellor will provide to all Deans, Division Heads, and the Student Association a list of the proposals funded. Proposers of non-funded projects will be notified, in writing, that their project will not be funded and the rationale for the decision. Proposers of funded projects will be notified, in writing, that their project has been funded, the stipulations on the use of the funds, the accounting procedures to be followed, and the forms and deadlines for submission of project reports.

3. Accountability/Assessment

3.1 Overview
The committee is charged with monitoring and annually reporting on the use of surcharge revenues. A report is made annually to the Provost/Vice Chancellor regarding the committee’s assessment of all projects funded through fee surcharge revenues in the preceding five years. Policies, procedural process, and guidelines for accountability assessment are outlined below.
3.2 Project Accountability Reporting
All surcharge supported projects are expected to submit a UWM Educational Technology Projects Form B Project Assessment Report on the use and/or continuing impact of funds over as long as a five year period of time. Annual reports must be submitted to the committee by August 1 of each subsequent project year. Project reports should contain the following information:

I. Project description. A description of the project (indicate if this description is different than the one proposed and why).
II. Expenditures. Completed budget summary table.
III. Discussion
A. Project Assessment: Including demonstrable (preferably measured) effects of funded project and explanations for differences in anticipated versus observed outcomes.
B. Purchase orders and/or final accounting ledger. Purchase orders and/or final accounting ledger that provide a detailed accounting of the project expenses.
C. Maintenance/upgrades. An estimate of the longevity of the project and its impact; identification of the unit assuming responsibility for maintaining oversight authority for the project; and the long-term financial implications and responsibility for the project’s maintenance and upgrades. Please note if this description is different than the one proposed and explain why.

The committee receives and reviews all project reports. It may return any report for additional information deemed necessary.

Concurrent with the timing of project reports, the committee receives from UWM administration an annual accounting and budget analysis report that includes a summary of fee revenues and verified project expenditure histories (including notations on problematic activities observed for any project).

3.3 Annual Report
The committee submits an annual report to the Provost/Vice Chancellor prior to the end of each fiscal year. The contents of the report include: committee evaluations on the status of each funded project, recommendations for actions to be taken in the event of a project’s unacceptable performance or administration, recommendations for the disposition of any encumbered but unspent revenues, recommendations on future needs/priorities, and recommendations on changes to the committee’s composition, charge, policies, procedures, or administrative support.