APPROVED

IHETS Board of Directors
March 31, 2006, 1:30pm
Boardroom

Board Participants:
Patrick Alles, Independent Colleges of Indiana (representing Hans Giesecke)
Lloyd Benjamin, Indiana State University (Chair)
Wayne Bohm, University of Southern Indiana (representing H. Ray Hoops)
Jim Bottum, Purdue University
Karl Browning, Indiana Office of Technology
Richard Helton, Vincennes University
Martin Jischke, Purdue University
Ed Kinley, Indiana State University
Gerald Lamkin, Ivy Tech State College
Michael Piper, INCOLSA
Suellen Reed, Department of Education
O’Neal Smitherman, Ball State University (representing JoAnn Gora)
Brad Wheeler, Indiana University (proposed IHETS Board member)
Lloyd Wright, Indiana Public Broadcasting

Management Committee Participants:
Michael Huffman, Department of Education
Laura Larimer, Ivy Tech State College

Guests:
Mark Bruhn, Indiana University
Brett Coryell, Purdue University
Chris Cotterill, Indiana Office of Technology
David Hensel, Sommer Barnard

IHETS Staff:  Tim Fisher, Dave King, Susan Scott, Kevin Siminski, Julie Wheeler

Chairman Benjamin called the meeting to order at 1:35 pm and introductions were made.

Report from the Nominating Committee: 
Benjamin reported that recent discussions on the mission of IHETS and the review have lead to new guidelines and governance.  The Nominating Committee has completed a slate of new Board members based on the recently approved governance changes.  The new blended Board slate, when approved, will take governance responsibility at the completion of this meeting.

The Nominating Committee was appointed at the last Board meeting made up of Benjamin, Kramer, Wright and Giesecke.  Benjamin and King addressed a number of questions about the proposed slate of Board members.  President Jischke asked that given the work at hand and priorities (I-Light) whether this is the best group to manage that.

Benjamin responded that the Board membership is always subject to modification, as we go through this period of transitioning, in terms of operation of the network and representation around it.  He added that a year from now it might look different and that the Board would make new recommendations.  This leadership can choose to form ancillary or additional subcommittees that might take on specific tasks and report back to the Board. 

King reviewed the committee structure and noted that the Board term is three years (renewable once).  The Board members listed will get a set of rotating assignments so that we can get into that process.  The approved recommendation was to create three committees including e-learning, technical and finance.  The first assignment to the Board will be to identify members at their institutions to each of those committees. Each of those committees will meet every other month and will have full representation from the spectrum of people from the institutions and other members. 

The recommendation from the Nominating Committee is to adopt the slate of new Board members with their appointment beginning at the conclusion of this meeting. 

Proposed Board of Director for 2006-07:

Lloyd Benjamin, Indiana State (Chair)
Jeff Pittman, Ivy Tech Wabash Valley
James Dworkin, Purdue North Central
James Moseley, Franklin College
O’Neal Smitherman, Ball State
Ed Kinley, Indiana State
Jim Bottum, Purdue University
Ron Davis, Vincennes University
Mark Rozewski, University of Southern Indiana
Hans Giesecke, Independent Colleges of Indiana
Suellen Reed, State Department of Public Instruction
Karl Browning, State CIO (designee Gerry Weaver, State CTO)
Lloyd Wright, Indiana Public Broadcasting
Michael Piper, INCOLSA

Tully moved

that the proposed slate of Board members be approved.  Alles seconded the motion.  The motion carried with the majority of the committee voting yes and one opposed (Jischke).

2006-07 Operating Budget Overview:
King reported that because the IU budget deadlines fall during the time the new Board will just become active; a preliminary review of the operating budget by the out-going Board will assist the new member’s review. 

• Appropriated funds reduction - $1.1M
• ITN Personnel funds reduction - $1.6M
• Estimated potential revenue from Higher Education-only network operation - $2.7M
• 2006-07 funds budgeted for ITN operation - $0.0
  (Complete cost recovery if agreement reached)
  • Any personnel required to continue limited operation of the ITN network in transition to commercial provider will be hired on contract.
• IHETS will eliminate 24 professional and 2 hourly positions through reduction in force on July 1, 2006                                     
• IHETS will add 9 new professional positions on July 1, 2006                                  
• 17 individuals will be impacted by the reduction on July 1, 2006  
• 48 professional positions filled at IHETS on July 1, 2006                
• 72 professional positions filled at IHETS on July 1, 2005                

King noted that we have been working with Human Resources on the reduction in force and will notify the affected employees on April 3, giving them a 3-month notice.

Indiana University has suggested a salary increase cap of 2.5%, however, internal discussion indicates 0% increase at IHETS due to the severe reduction in force.

I-Light Review:
Benjamin reported that a Memorandum of Understanding between the State Budget Agency, Purdue and Indiana universities to operate the I-Light network was signed.    The Indiana Office of Technology along with IU and PU would take responsibility for operating I-Light and the $6M to light the remaining fiber would be released to them.

Benjamin asked for some background on how the agreement was created noting that the current IHETS Board was not involved in its formulation or any decisions regarding it, noting also that there are many issues involved in this that could have a potential impact on IHETS.  

Browning reported that when Governor Daniels took office last year, the state was charged with looking for cost/expenditure savings, putting everything under scrutiny.  One of outstanding items was the remaining funds to be spent on I-Light.  The concept was studied for several months.  The notable efforts by McRobbie and Bottum on behalf of the research community became a persuasive argument that the I-Light structure could be well used as a tool for research and education at the universities. 

That pushed to the direction of releasing the funds to IU and PU to establish I-Light as a research tool for the university system (public and private) and to promote the educational missions within higher education community.  The funds were released and it was decided at the time that IU and Purdue would be the best suited to manage both the funds and the outcomes.   

Bottum added that after negotiating the MOU with the State, PU and IU engaged in discussions with King to get a sense of putting an evolutionary plan in place.  Some progress has been made in that area and in addition there will be an open forum on April 4 on the IUPUI campus.  That forum will be to discuss where the deployment of the fiber will be and all higher education has been invited to attend. 

Bruhn added that they appointed Dave Jent as the Chief I-Light Expansion Project Engineer.  One of the things that they heard early on in this process was that the nature of the relationship with the institutions around the state and the relationship with IHETS has been good and should continue.  He reported that is something that IU and Purdue are interested in continuing by asking for advise and input on how I-Light should evolve. 

In addition, Bruhn stated that another thing that has been discussed is what this assignment of responsibility to IU and PU really meant.  Their expectation was that the assignment meant that they will help all of the institutions in the state with their connectivity.  This would involve helping them with end to end connectivity, eventually getting them to fiber end to end.  This would include the backbone and the last mile connectivity from the campus to the nearest backbone node. 

There was some disagreement about that so they went back to the State and asked the question of the Governor’s office and Browning.  The response was that the Governor’s office expects them to have that end-to-end responsibility and therefore they would also want to be responsible for strategy and technical planning for all of that, which leaves the network provisioning section of IHETS somewhat unclear.

Benjamin noted that he finds it interesting that the IHETS board was not asked to participate in any of this planning.  This is a group of public and private institutions and entities that focus on the use of technology to support teaching and learning.  It is unusual that since IHETS has been doing these things was not involved during the process. 

Bottum responded that in discussions with King, they have discussed IHETS continuing with providing content and IU/PU dealing with the infrastructure.  Bruhn was in agreement that IHETS would still manage content and application support. 

King stated that the MOU does not mention anything about end-to-end connectivity. 

How to effectively transition from the current circuit structure to connection to the nodes of I-Light, needs to be discussed.  IHETS is not the just the staff, rather it is the member institutions and they have not had a chance to weigh in on this and it is our responsibility to have their full understanding and input in the process.  Bruhn and Bottum agreed that we need a transition plan. 

King asked the group for feedback on how to proceed, and stated that the IHETS role and expectation is to provide ultimate service. 

Bruhn suggested the IU point of view was that IU and PU will manage the technical governing board for the “pipes” and IHETS will deal with applications and content, and agreed that both sides need to communicate. 

Alles asked why we are discussing a second governing body?  Why is IHETS not considered part of that governing body as we already have an open forum representing all institutions already in place? 

Browning said in granting this MOU the Governor’s office clearly expects IU /PU to deliver on the terms.  Those folks took that responsibility and agreed to deliver on that. 

King asked what happens when the $6M runs out?  Bruhn stated that the $6M is build-out money and there will be connect fees.  There is no expectation that any campus will pay more then they are currently paying, unless they request additional services.  About half of the $6M has been spent on optical hardware and the rest will go to build-out.

Alles added that he represents 31 independent institutions having to either contract or depend upon the two large state universities for pricing, fairness and equity for building on the last mile and fees.  They have had a trusted relationship with IHETS ensuring that the independent institutions get equity considerations in any discussion.  

Bruhn guaranteed that there will be a governing board established before the first connection is made in June.

Reed asked that everyone remember the needs of K12 and how important it is that they are able to deliver services to the schools.  With the needs for more distance learning and opportunities for middle-college type activities, and fewer teachers, they have relied heavily on IHETS.  She added the importance that pricing remains within reach. 

Following the lengthy discussion, Kinley moved
that we constitute a task group to study the issues related to the I-Light transition, to facilitate discussions and keep the Board of Directors abreast of the progress.  Alles seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Benjamin asked for volunteers to serve on the task group.  The group includes Kinley, Smitherman, Wright, Alles, and Bottum as the chair.  Benjamin stated that the task group should plan to meet shortly after the April 4th forum.  Bottum added Bruhn at a later date.

With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 3:00pm.