*** UNAPPROVED DRAFT ***
Meeting minutes, November 17, 2006
2 p.m., IHETS boardroom

Present:  Lloyd Benjamin, Indiana State University (Chair); Mark Bruhn, Indiana University (for Brad Wheeler); Jeff Pittman, Ivy Tech State College and O’Neal Smitherman, Ball State University

IHETS staff:  Cheryl Denski, Tim Fisher, Max Gordon, Bill Kramer, Susan Sullivan, Julie Wheeler

Chairman Benjamin called the meeting to order and introductions were made.  He noted the first item on the agenda which is the communications work plan, which has been proposed to address the 10 recommendations resulting from the 2005 IHETS organizational review last fall. Four work plans have been developed, assigned to specific operating committees, and submitted to the committees for their approval:

• The technology work plan is assigned to the technical operations committee
• E-learning work plan is assigned to the partnership committee
• Pricing work plan is assigned to the finance committee
• Communications work pan is assigned to the executive committee. 

All plans (with the exception of the communications  plan) are expected to be complete in early to mid-February, which is approximately when we anticipate knowing more about the IHETS appropriation. 

Committee reports

• Finance: Pittman reported the committee met yesterday and approved the pricing work plan. The group will prepare an interim service pricing model by December 10. He added the group reviewed and approved the I-Light transition resolution, which is on today’s agenda for approval. The group also discussed the ITFS license revenue issue, also on the agenda for today.

• Technology: Smitherman reported that the committee met earlier this week and approved the technology work plan. The group is supportive of the plan and has scheduled a December 1 meeting to continue discussions. Smitherman noted the proposed work plan timeframe should be maintained so that when the legislature meets, we have definite information that that illustrates how IHETS is moving forward. In addition, the group is developing a list of new services that might be offered by IHETS and determine how existing services can be used to maximum potential for members and affiliate stakeholders. This will be completed before the December 1 meeting. Smitherman noted the group also approved moving forward with the network transition and discussed ownership of the current ITFS licenses and their potential revenue for the consortium.  The consensus was to form a subcommittee to determine the best use of the financial opportunities provided by the licenses; the subcommittee includes Scott Ksander, Laura Larimer, O’Neal Smitherman, Jeff Pittman, and Max Gordon.
  
• Partnership: Kramer reported that Brad Wheeler, committee chair, has been working with IHETS to survey members regarding the value of  e-learning services, rating each and awarding a total of 1,000 points among all current services offered. The poll was distributed yesterday and is due back next week. Susan Scott will tabulate the results and will meet with Wheeler in early December to determine how to proceed with the e-learning work plan.

Communications work plan

Kramer introduced Susan Sullivan, IHETS' marketing and communication manager, and Cheryl Denski, IHETS' data quality assurance manager.

Sullivan stated that in addition to approval of the communications work plan, the question before the group is who should receive regular communications from IHETS and who should receive special or as-needed communications reporting urgent IHETS updates. In addition, she questioned how broadly does the group recommend extending communications beyond the consortium? 

The communication work plan proposes regular, bi-monthly e-newsletters through the first quarter of 2007, at which time they could become monthly or issued as needed. Sullivan noted that preliminary work has been done to develop mailing lists of targeted higher education stakeholder groups. In addition, targeted legislative including both Senate and House caucus members, committees, policy-makers, and majority and minority legislative staff . Other stakeholder lists include K-12 schools and public libraries.

Sullivan asked the group with whom they would feel comfortable with us communicating? Smitherman believes information about IHETS should be distributed, noting there was discussion in technology operations committee meeting regarding whether new members should be brought into the consortium. The group agreed it was broadly distributed communications were worth considering, but careful timing was an issue. Smitherman expressed support for distributing communications to consortium stakeholders rather than broader "direct marketing," noting the possibility of expanding consortium membership later.

Kramer agreed with the possibility of expansion, noting the issue will be discussed as the work plans are implemented. He added that IHETS' legislation does permit us to offer IHETS services to other groups, but it remains unclear whether such groups would become members of the consortium if they took advantage of the services.

Sullivan stated general information about IHETS services, professional development events, and other programs would be included in the communications. She suggested a short greeting from Benjamin as chair of the IHETS board, as well as brief updates about work plan progress, news about the network transition, pricing structures, etc.

Kramer reported a mock-up of the first issue would be provided to the committee for their review and feedback prior to circulation. 

Benjamin stated that there is a great need to get the word out about the organization, but that should not be confused with the issue of whether target audiences are actual consortium members. Pittman agreed, adding the biggest challenge is gaining understanding about the IHETS consortium.

Network transition from IHETS to IU

Kramer reported the resolution transitioning the I-Light and circuit-based networks to IU and PU has been approved by the operating committees, noting the following terms and conditions:

1. The transfer is effective as of the date of approval by the IHETS Board of Directors' Executive Committee.
2. Circuit fees collected by IHETS will be used by IHETS to pay personnel and other costs associated with the network through December 31, 2006. Thereafter, Indiana University will collect all fees and pay all circuit-based costs except as specified below.
3. Of the eight (8) personnel positions budgeted and paid for from circuit fees (six of which are filled and will transfer to Indiana University-UITS); two will be funded from the IHETS appropriation through June 30, 2007, at which time they will transfer to Indiana University-UITS.
4. The Juniper network equipment purchased in 2005-06 for the higher education network with IHETS funds ($316,000) will be transferred to Indiana University-UITS.                           

Smitherman moved the resolution be approved; Pittman seconded. The motion was passed unanimously. 

ITFS licenses

Kramer reported the ITFS subcommittee will meet November 28, adding there was potential for IHETS to receive additional revenue from the uncommitted licenses. Resolving this issue while the legislature is still in session would be beneficial because of the PROBE review, which noted concern about the state funding the bulk of IHETS' operation. ITFS revenue might satisfy that concern. He noted this issue should not bias the subcommittee's work, however, and expects the subcommittee will reach a decision in the next two to three months.

PROBE update

IHETS staff met with Kramer this morning to strategize on a response to the PROBE review, which included a miscalculation resulting in an IHETS score of 35 (not 34) percent. Kramer remarked on the enormity of Peter Miller's task, concluding this impacted the total IHETS score. A draft response will be provided to the executive committee for their review/comment in the next week.  Kramer noted the current culture of privatizing at the statehouse does not prevent us from emphasizing the synergy, economies of scale, and other benefits that consortium members receive. He believes IHETS can demonstrate this is the case. The biggest criticism IHETS received regards metrics. The state seeks outcome-based results not output measures. Kramer said Miller will be invited to attend committee meetings when measures are discussed, adding he has heard from two key legislators that they plan to or have already sent the governor a letter expressing their concerns about IHETS' PROBE review based upon what they have heard from constituents. 

Kramer noted the Office of Management and Budget must submit their final report by December 2. Fisher has reviewed the “budget scorecard” that tracks where the IHETS budget is at as it moves through the legislative process. Kramer finds it positive that ICHE recommended our budget with a 3 percent inflationary increase, but notes concern remains regarding whether the PROBE report will have a negative impact. He noted those state government agencies whose score is below 50 percent must resubmit their line-item budget. Because IHETS is an instrumentality or administrative unit of Indiana University, not a state agency, it is unclear if we will also need to resubmit a budget request.

The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m.