APPROVED

IHETS Management Committee

May 17, 2005, 10:00am

IHETS Boardroom

 

PRESENT

Patrick Alles, Independent Colleges of Indiana

Mark Azordegan, Vincennes University

Wayne Bohm, University of Southern Indiana

Jim Bottum, Purdue University

David Jent, Indiana University

Ed Kinley, Indiana State University

William Kramer, Ivy Tech State College

Bob Long, Purdue University

Joe Misciewicz, Indiana Public Broadcasting

Fred Nay, Ball State University

Mark Rozewski, University of Southern Indiana

Dick Tully, Ivy Tech State College

Phyllis Usher, Department of Education

 

STAFF:

Tim Fisher, Dave King, Rauf Khalid, Tim Ping, Susan Scott, Kevin Siminski, Lynn Ward, Julie Wheeler

 

Chairman Kramer called the meeting to order at 10:05am and introductions were made.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Long moved that the minutes of the March 8, April 4, April 6 and April 11 and April 22nd meetings be approved.  Alles seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

 

CHAIR’S REPORT
Kramer reported that Intelenet has made the first payment of the arrearage in the amount of $1M.  The payment was forwarded to Indiana University.  Staff will meet with Intelenet to reconcile inventory and any issues with past invoices.  As outlined in the contract, payments for the remaining $1M are to be completed by June 30, 2005.  If they are not complete by that time, Intelenet agrees to pay 50% of the remaining amount by June 30 and the final amount by December 2005.  Following pay off of the arrearage, Intelenet has agreed to make payments on a regular schedule through the end of the contract in June, 2006. 

 

Kramer thanked King and his staff for their work in dealing with the contract negotiations, budget and legal issues over the last several months.

 

 

LEGAL ISSUES UPDATE
King reported that the Executive Session has been cancelled as there is no new information to report on the legal investigation.  Kramer added that at the last meeting, the Board approved the acquisition of outside counsel to be present when staff is interviewed by the investigators.   We are in the final phase of selecting counsel for staff.

 

PENDING ISSUES

Budget Options – King reviewed the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended cuts amounting to about 60% the first year of the biennium.  Following several meetings with Senator Meeks and members of the Appropriations Committee we were able to get that 60% restructured to reductions of approximately 12.4% in first year ($825K) and just under 20% ($1.1M) in the second year of the biennium. 

 

King learned that there was some concern in the Senate Appropriations Committee, that IHETS member institutions should share fiscal responsibility to include a greater portion of the operating expenses of the consortium.  King told Senator Meeks that he agreed that this was an idea that we should discuss but it would take at least a year to develop a workable strategy that would take into account their concerns at the same time that the legislature is making heavy cuts into the several of the higher education budgets.   

 

In addition, the legislative language states that no appropriated funds are to be used for the course and module grant development program which was funded by the legislature in 1997.  King expressed disappointment that there may be the impression that IHETS is overly-involved in course content.  He hopes that we can help them to understand that IHETS does not produce content; rather it is the member institutions.  We would like to continue conversations to identify unappropriated funds for the course development grant program. 

 

King continued his report by reviewing the 2005-2006 Proposed IHETS Budget and identified the areas that were reduced to meet the 12.4% cut.    

Personnel ($111K) eliminate one full-time and one hourly position for IDEAS; and one Digital Asset Management hourly position.  King added that the positions are currently vacant.

Administration ($75) We budgeted $75K less for legal/auditor expenses

Equipment ($138,655)  Reduced the Capital Equipment Reserve and New Capital Equipment lines as a result of extending the computer replacement cycle.  King added that we will increase software acquisitions by about $6K related to the IHETS Interactive project.

Grants ($200K)  Reduction in Course Development Grant funding.  We will retain $50K to be used for professional development in the area of learning module and learning objects. 

Projects ($218,120) Development costs reduced for IHETS Interactive.  The planning group is rethinking the process to provide a suite of alternatives to the satellite system, rather than putting all of our emphasis and expectations on a web conferencing structure. 

Distributed Technology ($268,300) Cost reduction of satellite lease by one channel.  We will also reduce staff home connection costs and termination of a DS3 circuit for video. 

Contracts  ($95K) Cut contractual expense for the IDEAS project and satellite field service, and reduced the project management contractual expense.

Training and Travel ($15K) reduced the staff training and conference/workshop lines by 3% across the board.

 

King reported that the proposed cuts meet the reduction in appropriation but do not include a salary increase for the first year of the biennium.  Indiana University is recommending that increases should be no less than $675 and the average increase should be between 1-3%.  To meet the $675 flat increase for IU-paid employees would be approximately $20K reduction in the distributed technology area.  King noted that because about half of the staff is paid by ITN, we will need to go to Intelenet and request an equal amount to increase salaries for the ITN staff. 

 

The group suggested reallocating the Grants line to alleviate any confusion or concern.  Following discussion, Usher moved

that the 2005-2006 Proposed IHETS Budget be approved with the addition of reallocated funds for salary increases and wording modifications. 

 

Alles seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

 

ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

King reported that the next phase in the process of addressing the issues raised by the legislature will be to consider, in detail, three basic issues: structure and function of the IHETS consortium, current and future suite of services, and governance.

 

King will propose to the Board that they appoint a review team to consider these issues.  The team would report back before December 15, 2005 with options and suggestions for potential restructuring, priority setting, and a possible balance of fee-for-service, membership fee, and/or other approaches. These should align the consortium operation more closely with the needs and expectations of the member institutions, as well as deal with the scheduled additional $1.1M additional reduction in appropriated funds set for FY06-07.

 

King suggested a relatively small review team broadly representative of the various constituencies that IHETS serves. This could include one member from each of the member committees—The Board, Management Committee, Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education, and the Integrated Technologies Committee—as well as one or two faculty members, a student, an IT support staff person, a campus CIO, a Continuing Education dean or associate dean and perhaps a member of the corporate community.  A group of 10 plus-or-minus would be large enough to generate good IDEAS, but small enough to be manageable.  IHETS staff will support this review effort with logistics, information, support and planning, but the review team will report to the Board.

 

Example activities the review team might undertake include:

• Conduct a small number of  focus groups and possible surveys of members to establish current needs
• Receive input from national educational and technology leaders to establish comparative potential 
• Review a detailed analysis of current budget allocations and structure
• Review governance options from other similar organizations
• Develop service and revenue options that meet member needs

 

In addition, we might consider inviting Senator Meeks and legislative staff to meet jointly with representatives of the Board and the review team early in the process to let the Senator directly indicate their legislative concerns and interests.

 

Following review of the proposal the Committee supported the idea of reviewing the consortium, services and governance structure through a review team.  King agreed to develop a two-page prospectus in an email to this group for review, input and response prior to the Board meeting in mid-June.

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Integrated Technologies Committee - Nay reported that the ITC meeting was postponed until after this meeting.  Siminski added that discussions will focus on the decision to not respond to the state RFP and to proceed with the higher education network.  Staff will be working closely with members of the ITC to determine what that higher education network will look like and how to proceed.

 

IPSE – Tully reported that there were about 180 attendees at the All Partners Conference at the University of Indianapolis.  The conference was well received with positive evaluations.  The group has been following the process of the IHETS Interactive implementation and has reacted to some of the directions that have been taken.  At the last meeting, there was considerable discussion surrounding the budget issues.

 

Tully reported that there will be a Student Services Summit at the University of Indianapolis on June 3.  We will be bringing together bursars, registrars, financial aid administrators, ICN and campus coordinators to re-look at the home institutions model.  Currently, the financial arrangements in the current home institution model prohibit the private institutions from participating in the financial structure. They will try to identify ways to minimize administrative overhead, and looking at the consortium agreement.  Tully added that the home institution model got its primary start to allow students that attend multiple institutions in a semester, to get financial aid.  In addition, they will look at finding the best methods to support students that want cross-institutional registration during a semester. 

 

King added that he, Ward and Scott have considerable interaction with the individuals at virtual universities throughout the country.  In doing so, they have found similar versions of our home institution model currently being used across the country.  The home institution model has been working well here and needs some revisions to make it more user-friendly for students.   Scott stated that if anyone has questions or would like more information, they should contact staff or Dick Tully.

 

With no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned at 11:20am.

 

 

1560