APPROVED
IHETS Board of Directors
April 24, 2006 – 11:00am
Audio Conference
Board participants:
Patrick Alles, Independent Colleges of Indiana
Lloyd Benjamin, Indiana State University (Chair);
Jim Bottum, Purdue University;
Mark Bruhn, Indiana University;
Ron Davis, Vincennes University;
Hans Giesecke, Independent Colleges of Indiana;
James Moseley, Franklin College;
Michael Piper, INCOLSA;
Jeff Pittman, Ivy Tech Community College;
Mark Rozewski, University of Southern Indiana;
O’Neal Smitherman, Ball State University;
Gerry Weaver, State of Indiana;
Brad Wheeler, Indiana University;
Lloyd Wright, Indiana Public Broadcasting
IHETS staff: Tim Fisher, Dave King, Susan Scott, Kevin Siminski, Lynn Ward, Julie Wheeler
Benjamin called the meeting to order at 11:00 and introductions were made.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the March 31st meeting were reviewed. Wright moved that the minutes of the March 31, 2006 meeting be approved. Kinley seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Report from ILight Task Force-
Benjamin noted that the Task Force was appointed to assess the ILight transition options and make recommendations back to the Board. The Task Force members include Kinley, Smitherman, Wright, Alles, Bruhn and Bottum as chair, with staff support from Siminski.
Bottum reported that the Task Force met several times and identified four issues for discussion: operational issues associated with getting the new backbone up and moving toward a seamless integration with the existing network; governance; communication and financial.
On Operational issues, Bottum stated that there was strong consensus within the group that we don’t want to delay the deployment. With that in mind, they are recommending that the backbone be operational as soon as possible and let the institutions that are ready to connect build their on ramps to the backbone in an expeditious manner. He noted that the lighting of the backbone is imminent with the northern leg scheduled to be lit by June 1st.
A second critical area is user support and the group advanced the principal that as the ILight network is implemented, our goal should be a seamless and transparent transition for the institutions. There are plans to integrate the service desks of the GNOC and the IHETS NOC. The recommendation from the Task Force is that the Board endorse plans for a speedy network deployment and customer support integration.
Governance: Bottum reported that the group spent a considerable amount of time discussing the issue of governance. There are still some unclear issues in this area. This is due to the way in which the funds were released and the interactions with the state over the past several months which led to the state selecting IU and PU to manage the ILight. The State released the funds in this way and the transaction ignored IHETS entirely.
Much of the discussion centered on the enabling statute for IHETS and its direction to establish one group to represent higher education and telecommunication matters. Some members of the group were concerned with the establishment of a second governing board based on the MOU between the state, IU and PU. Bottum added that some have questioned the legality of such action and attorneys have been asked to respond on the issue.
The task force considered a resolution drafted by Alles as the ICI representative for discussion to establish a governance body commissioned by the IHETS Board focus specifically on the ILight deployment and governance. The recommendation in the area of governance is, to encourage the IHETS Board to either extend the current task force charge to continue to study (and make recommendations) in this area. Or, establish a new transition team to work on this and subsequent issues, emphasizing that none of this should slow down the deployment.
Alles added that the Independent Colleges believe that the best location for any of these operations occur within the same framework as outlined in 20-12-12. and the resolution is a compromise between what was seen as a troublesome issue between the current IHETS board and the location for that.
Weaver questioned if this conflicts with what the agreement was between the state and giving ILight to IU and PU? If so we need to resolve that as well. Smitherman responded that this was not establishing governance of ILight, rather appointing a transition group with some responsibilities to make suggestions as to how the transition might take place. Since we don’t know what that transition will take place yet, the group felt it was important to have some connection back to IHETS and to the universities as part of that move for the deployment. Smitherman stated that it ties to the first recommendation, which is that we go ahead with the deployment and this group would be representing the institutions, and with the endorsement of IHETS consortium Board.
Bottum added that he doesn’t see it as impeding what the state has asked IU and PU to do. We are seeking higher ed’s guidance and involvement in the deployment of the backbone and the existing governing body that represents higher education is in line with what they were trying to. Given where we are right now it could be the quickest path to make things happen.
Weaver asked if we can work through the governance over a period of time while moving forward operationally with getting the deployment going. He added that if there are issues with implementing ILight, we might want to go back to the State to explain how these could merge and benefit the State. Bruhn stated that we are reconciling what we perceive the expectations are and the responsibilities assigned to IU and PU and necessary involvement of the IHETS Board and consortium. Clearly the representation of the IHETS board is exactly what we need for discussions on networking issues.
Benjamin reported that extending the Task Group’s charge avoids complexity and insures the immediacy of response and the flow of information. Giesecke moved that the task group’s charge be extended to assist with transitional issues. Pittman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Communication: The Task Force feels there is a need for regular and clear communication to the state, the institutions and IHETS on ILight deployment, therefore, the group is developing a communications plan. In addition, there is a need for a comprehensive statewide case to do more build-out recommending some focus in the government relations area, to build a case for additional funding. The recommendation is that the Board discuss this matter and assist with the above mentioned strategies and give guidance in each of these areas.
Financial - this area needs more discussion regarding budgeting and billing, the overall mission of IHETS, and content vs. provisioning. The Task Group needs more time to look into those areas. The recommendation in this area is to make this part of the charge going forward to the new working group.
(A copy of Bottom’s April 24, 2006 report to Benjamin is attached. 1stReport)
IHETS Operating Committee Chairs-
Benjamin reported that we are at the point of checking with potential candidates for these positions. In addition, he reported on the usefulness of a strategic planning session on the afternoon of June 13th. The session will be facilitated by Ron Thieme, and the initial task is to review over-arching organizational goals.
Report from Legal Counsel-
Hensel reported that he sent a report to the group about the contracts with Intelenet and IOT. The contract that we currently operate network services under will expire June 30th, 2006. He noted that in compliance with the contract, we have kept the network up and IOT has paid the arrearage. We continue to submit monthly bills under the contract, and they are paid in a timely fashion. We are going forward with new contract negotiations to continue the operations until the state identifies a new network operator to take over ITN.
Hensel also discussed the final outcome of the comprehensive audit of network equipment inventory and purchasing procedures. According to the April 18, 2006 memo from Hensel to Benjamin:
After several months of work, IHETS successfully completed the audit process in January 2006. The audit revealed that since July 1997, there have been more than 3,600 pieces of equipment purchased for the ITN at a total cost of just over $11 million. IHETS and KSM were able to account for all of this equipment except for 10 items with an original purchase value of $27,000 (which represents less than three tenths of one percent of the total equipment purchased). (See attached 4.18.06 memo for complete text. Hensel memo)
Staffing Issues - King noted that because of the RIF and the elimination of the ITN positions. After we finalize the contract, we will bring staff back on through a contracting agency, as needed for the duration of the new contract for network operations.
IHETS Operating Budget for FY2006-07-
King reported that the deadline for submission of the IHETS operating budget for FY06-07 to Indiana University was pushed up to April 14th. We submitted the attached budget pending any possible changes by the IHETS Board of Directors at this meeting.
King noted that the budget reflects the significant fiscal changes IHETS is coping with during this biennium. Those include reduction in appropriated funds of 20% or $1.1M and the elimination of ITN network revenue budgeted at approximately $2.3M. This has resulted in a reduction-in-force affecting a total of 43 positions that were budgeted for in FY05-06. (See attached budget outline. 06-07 Budget outline)
King reviewed the budget impact and final budget numbers for FY06-07.
Following discussion, Rozewski moved that the IHETS Operating Budget for 2006-07 be approved. Giesecke seconded and the motion was unanimously approved.
With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 11:50am
