Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Mass Mailings/Broadcasts, Information Technology Services, UNCG

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Mass Mailings/Broadcasts

April 22, 1999

Introduction

In early March, Vice Chancellor James Clotfelter impaneled an ad hoc committee to investigate and make recommendations to the University on the use of information technology for sending mass email and voice broadcasts at UNCG. The committee broadly represented the campus and comprised the following individuals: Dana Sally (Jackson Library), chair; James Black (Enrollment Services); Susan Buck (Political Science); Ty Buckner (Athletics); Shannon Burks (Business and Student Services); Steve Danford (Physics and Astronomy); Helen Dennison (University Relations); James Lancaster (Student Affairs); Mariana Newton (Communication Sciences and Disorders); and Guy Sanders (Housing and Residence Life).

In its written charge, the committee was reminded that the apparent communication benefits of mass email and voice broadcasts would make them increasingly popular among campus organizations and individuals. The apparent benefits and convenience to the user of these forms of communication would need to be weighed, however, against technical and resource implications for the campus, as well as against the desirability of their receipt. Recognizing that there were advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of universal email and voice broadcasts, Vice Chancellor Clotfelter asked the committee to conduct its review and make recommendations not on the basis of technical or cost implications alone, nor solely on the basis of the attitudes and desires of any particular group, but on what was in the best overall interest of the University.

Over the course of six weeks, the committee met as a group six times, collected technical information and data from ITP staff, sought and received feedback from various campus groups and individuals about the utility and desirability of mass email and voice broadcasts, reviewed the status of policies on this matter at other UNC institutions, and considered current information technology alternatives to them for communicating within the UNCG community.

The committee's findings and recommendations are presented below in three sections: mass email, universal campus voice broadcasts, and new technological means for distributing campus information. Within each section, recommendations are followed by comments that provide background considerations and rationale, as well as possible consequences and implications of the recommendations.

Mass Email Messages

Recommendations:

1. The ability [1] of University staff, students, organizations, and units to send email messages directly to the entire UNCG community using the campus network should be determined only by the Chancellor or her designee.
2. In developing criteria for determining which messages are appropriate for mass email, the University should use and consistently apply the very highest standards of importance and relevance of these messages to the campus as a whole. The committee recommends that mass email messages be limited to those that fit into one of the following categories:

1) emergencies
2) information about situations that would substantially alter the normal operation of the University

3) information that the Chancellor judges important to the University community

The committee's recommendation to limit the ability of individuals and groups to send mass email is based primarily on the breadth and strength of negative reaction that the prospect of unrestrained mass email evoked. Almost immediately after its formation, the committee began to receive feedback from various campus constituencies - including numerous individual faculty and staff, the Deans Council, and several administrative units - indicating that they strongly opposed the notion of uncontrolled mass email. Most felt that the unregulated ability to send email to everyone on campus would result in a flood of unwanted and unwelcome communications into mailboxes. This situation would result in information glut and would have the effect of hindering rather than enhancing communication on campus. Therefore, the committee concluded that its recommendations should have the effect of severely limiting the number of such messages.

In addition to being unwanted, mass email could have serious technical and significant cost implications. Information Technology and Planning staff informed the committee that although the campus network's capacity is great, unfettered mass emailing could undermine network effectiveness by crashing the email system and disrupting the operation of other campus network servers. In fact, in late March, the committee received work that the Systems and Network staff had limited the number of email recipients to 1,000 or less, to ensure reliable network service. This action was taken in response to an email message that was sent to all students that overwhelmed the campus network's ability to manage the load, thereby resulting in the temporary failure of two other campus servers. Finally, the committee could not clearly determine that there is an overall savings to the University in dollars and time by using mass email rather than "hard-copy" mail. Email serves as an additional communication vehicle rather than a replacement of traditional means of communication.

There are obvious and immediate implications associated with adopting the two recommendations regarding mass email:

The University administrator will need to develop more specific criteria for determining which messages fit into the three categories recommended by the committee.
A clear and simple procedure for requesting this ability to send mass email will need to be established.
Some technological or administrative mechanism for limiting the ability to mass email will need to be implemented.
If technological means for limiting mass email are not feasible, the University may need to consider mechanisms for dealing with unauthorized uses of mass email.

Universal Voice Broadcasts

Recommendations:

Given the current technological limitations of universal voice mail broadcasts, they should be limited to communicating only campus emergencies.
In the future, should the technological and administrative limitations to which they are currently subject be overcome, universal voice broadcasts should be controlled in the same manner as mass email (see recommendations one and two above).

Because of their perceived intrusiveness, because they are sent off-campus to other state agencies, and because they cannot be summarily eliminated without being listened to, universal voice broadcasts were viewed as even more deeply annoying and unwelcome than mass email. For that reason, the committee recommended that they be used only in true emergency situations. The current practice of having the system administrator of the telephone system approve universal voice broadcast messages is suitably limiting and should continue for the present. If telephone technology advances to the point where universal voice broadcasts have functionality similar to email, then they should be regulated by the same policies as mass email.

New Means for Information Delivery

Recommendation:

UNCG should actively explore and develop new information technology alternatives for the delivery of campus information. These new alternatives should be ones that are based on the ability of the user to select or choose what information is received and viewed.

Because of its high speed, lower cost, obvious convenience, and near universal use and accessibility, networked electronic information technologies such as email offer tremendous potential communication benefits. If these information technologies are used to "push" information to users in an uncontrolled manner and without being selected they are unwelcome, they lose their appeal and benefit. If, on the other hand, these technologies are developed in such a way that individuals can "pull" information from selected and preferred categories of information mounted centrally, then the potential utility of these technologies is more likely to be fully realized.

Based on feedback the committee received, this general approach to the use of information technology for communicating -- i.e., limiting mass "push" but developing selected "pull" -- is heartily endorsed and supported by individuals and groups on campus. Therefore, the University should embrace this approach to communication and information delivery and develop choice-driven and subscriber-driven capabilities such as focused listserves, shared network mailboxes, and Web portal services like SCT Pipeline. In so doing, the communication benefits of information technology will accrue to both the provider and user of campus information.

Dana Sally, chair

[1] The committee discussed at length the use of "ability" in framing its recommendations. Throughout the report, it is used in the sense of being granted or provided both a technical capability and an administrative authorization.