Contact Us   Archive   Sitemap

  
board2007_06_13

APPROVED

IHETS Board of Directors Meeting
June 13, 2007 – 3:30pm
IHETS Boardroom, Indianapolis

Board Participants:

IHETS Staff:

Chairman Benjamin called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and roll call was taken.    He welcomed everyone to the spring meeting of the IHETS Board of Directors and noted that the Board is scheduled to meet again in October. 

Chair’s Opening Remarks
Benjamin reported that an all day retreat was held on June 5th with members of the Executive Committee and members of the Board.  As a follow-up to the retreat several Board members shared their views on what the mission and vision for IHETS should be.  During the retreat there was some consensus that we need to be attentive to the mission especially with changes in governance and the shifting of the network to Indiana University during the last year.  In concert with these are budget issues that are on the immediate horizon and grow in severity beyond this first year. 

Benjamin added that central to what we did at the retreat, there were discussions among the various committees and the data shared indicate that many of IHETS’ services are little used.  The services that are used tend to be congregated in certain institutions that might have a heavier reliance than others in general.  Given the paucity of usage, comes the question of whether we are able to justify a $4.7M expenditure for IHETS.  Data shows that IHETS Interactive and SUVON are used by a small number of institutions, but in essence IHETS is subsidizing one or two schools usage of the service.   The service that shows the most frequent usage is ICN.  Benjamin posed the question as to whether ICN should remain an IHETS function or should it be shifted to some other entity. 

The real issue in view of the budget and the information that has been shared is where do we go from here?  What remains as a key role is advising the use of the higher education network to serve the needs of the state and institutions effectively.  Outside of that, other than a few institutions that rely heavily on services, we could look at IHETS as a paymaster or a pass-though agency from the legislature to IU to operate the network and possibly an ICN operator. 

Benjamin added that following the retreat, and after reading the remarks that circulated since, there has not been much interest in a broader use of services.  Many of the services that IHETS provides, institutions are now doing independently.  A key decision that we must make today is what we want the organization to do.  If we decide to focus and limit, then we will need to deal with transitional downsizing.  If we decide to broaden the view, then we will need to secure the resources to make it happen. 

IHETS Mission
Kramer reported that he met with Benjamin since the retreat and he expressed his appreciation to the Board for their follow-up and the comments that were circulated.  Kramer asked those that made comments to review them with the group today.  

Wheeler stated that we will need to consider all options today, whether that is to try to take the organization with a large vision that may be compelling in some way or look at it as a coordination mechanism for the institutions.  IHETS is the pass through for allocating state funds.  We could pursue the “public service” mission for the organization (I-Span).  Wheeler noted that the mission statement is essential to decide what we want to do.  The current mission makes reference to a P-20 domain of effort however, we currently we are not doing much with P-12 by the agreement with the governor’s office – the network is not doing much with that.  He added that we should be informed by history but not be constrained by it.

Kinley added that other alternatives might be worth investigating.  The University of New Mexico runs the network similar to what IU/PU are doing.  They developed a 501c3 that provides an advisory and governance for those services.  He suggested considering other alternatives to retaining IHETS in its present form.

Wright added that it is important to not define the mission in such a thin way that makes it insignificant and could easily be eliminated.  We need to protect what we do uniquely and that might be a base for growing it.  He noted that the I-Span project is dependent on IHETS.  The public broadcasting stations need to be interconnected and hopefully that can be through a fiber interconnection.  He stated that the $7M and $4M could create new opportunities for IHETS and he would welcome the opportunity for collaboration.  The current MOU for I-Light does not allow for public broadcasting to connect but it is expected that it will be modified to allow that to happen.  There could be opportunities for IHETS to be more engaged in public service media that is not limited entirely to the four years of the P-20. 

Smitherman commented that the mission and vision give us an arena to navigate intention with the goal to support the use of technology to further the goals of education, specifically higher education.  He stated that the current vision/mission allows us to have some flexibility without having to change our core issues and the current discussions are more strategic decisions that we need to consider now and in the future.  Smitherman stated that he is in favor of keeping the mission/vision broad enough to not be restrictive, adding that if we decide to move in another direction or add services that can be done within the current Board structure.  There may be new technologies that evolve or needs that develop in the state or on campuses that the consortium could have some flexibility and be able to respond to them without having to change the charter. 

Wheeler noted that there seems to be some agreement on the current mission/vision as it is, and given that we are in a transition period, should we maintain the current version for now?  Dworkin stated that he believes the current mission/vision statement may be too broad. Davis suggested that we set the vision aside for now, take the mission and begin thinking about what directions we need to go and we might find that the vision will begin to generate. 

Piper commented that there are two issues.  Short term, how do we define the use of funding that has been appropriated to us?  Long term, how do we identify opportunities and decide what kind of fit we have? 

Kramer stated that what he is hearing is that the mission may not be perfect but is not constraining, and that perhaps we should look further into different emphases that IHETS needs to focus on.  If it becomes too narrow at this time, we may find that after this year it is too constraining and could send the wrong message.

Following a lengthy discussion,
Wheeler moved that we drop the vision statement for now; we retain the current mission statement unamended.  The Executive Committee will be asked to form a special committee with a charge to develop alternate mission statements for discussion at the October Board of Directors meeting. 

Wright seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

2007-08 Operating Budget
Kramer reviewed the proposed 2007-08 Operating Budget.  He noted that given the motion that was just approved, it could have an impact on the budget that we are presenting for approval today.  The concepts behind the budget are that there are core services that would be offered this year, beginning July 1, and next year.  There are a number of additional services that will be offered this year with intent that they are phased out by the end of the fiscal year. 

The core services that would be offered this year are:

ICN, IHETS Interactive and two network services have been recommended for continuation during previous discussions.  Other services that are expected to phase out include, SUVON, audio and video conferencing.  If the proposed budget is approved today, staff will begin notifying institutions and our affiliate members immediately that by June 2008 those activities will no longer be supported by IHETS. 

During the second year of the biennium, IHETS would continue supporting the network, ICN and IHETS Interactive.  Video streaming phase out would be delayed until the legislative session is over. 

Due to the potential impact on the budget, we need to consider the real estate issue.  With the annual lease fee of $538K, the impact on the budget is substantial.  The excess space would increase in the second year from 7,000 to approximately 10,000 square feet as we have reductions in services and staffing.

Kramer reported that we have been pursing the real estate/lease options that were suggested at the retreat.  Staff contacted Lynn Coyne at IU Real Estate and asked if they would consider renegotiating the lease or pursue finding someone to sublease the unused space.  Additional options that we are pursuing include asking the building owner if they would consider a reduced lease cost on the space we are not using and we asked if IU would consider subsidizing some of the payment amount relative to the unused space.  We do not yet have responses to the proposed scenarios.  In addition, IU Real Estate did not have an issue with IHETS consulting with a commercial realtor in helping find a tenant as long as they facilitate it. 

Giesecke added that because of the PROBE review there is significant political value in pursuing all options and the ability to show that we are making a good faith effort to dispose of the excess real estate and making good use of the resources given to us. 

Davis questioned why the video conferencing line goes from $63K in 06-07 to $218K in 07-08.  Stockey explained that the current video conferencing equipment is being “end of lifed” by the vendor and we would need to replace it to continue the service.  When the service is phased out in 2008, we will consider transferring the bridge to a user. 

Currently, Ivy Tech is the largest user of video conferencing and would be considered for that transfer with the understanding that they would have to agree to support the users during the interim/transition.  It was suggested that rather than IHETS making the investment only to transfer the video bridge to Ivy Tech, we might consider looking at a cash subsidy of having Ivy Tech take that on now and start transitioning toward 2008.  Pittman stated that there is interest at Ivy Tech in exploring the option of continuing to lease the service for the next year and eventually take it over or pay a fee to IHETS to continue it. 

Kramer stated that in order to fully understand the implications we will outline what the budgeted amounts cover and give an idea of what support will need to be continued for other users during the interim/transition period.  After looking at the analysis, if it is the preference to not proceed with purchasing the new bridge, then this discussion will come back to Executive Committee or Board for a decision so that we are not continuing to support personnel that are associated with this service any longer than necessary.

Following the discussion,
Davis moved that the 2007-08 Operating Budget be approved and the proposed 2008-09 budget be tentatively approved for planning purposes.  Wright seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Network Circuit Support Policy for 2007-2008
Kramer reported that the Technical Operations Committee created a task force to look at subsidy policy.  Previously we had included in the budget, last June, a $700K for each year of the coming biennium.  The TechOps Committee needed to revisit the subsidy amount to determine if it is adequate.  There are institutions going from the circuit network on to fiber or switching from a T1 to fiber, which is a significant difference in the monthly amount.  The task force was charged with looking at the circuit support policy and also developing a plan for the Black Fiber and the $7M appropriation. 

Smitherman added that the task force reviewed the subsidy policy in general and considered whether now that the network has changed its form, whether we should take the idea of subsidies and roll it into a budget in another form and be able to reduce overall costs of running the network.  The committee decided that there are many institutions that have made plans for the subsidy as part of their upcoming budget and this is essentially rolling forward those same expectations.  The committee will take a deeper look at this throughout the year. 

Following the discussion,
Giesecke moved that the Network Circuit Support Policy for 2007-08 be approved as distributed.  Kinley seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Board/Committee Appointments
Kramer reported that it has been proposed that the transfer of the current Board of Directors Chair occur at this meeting rather than the October meeting as called for in the current by laws.  The by laws call for the current chair of the Finance Committee to move to Board Chair position and serve for a period of two years. 

Kramer noted that we are in this transition period where we have had the committee appointments for one year with the new Finance chair to serve beginning the year that appropriation is received.  That allows the Finance Committee Chair to serve two years until the next appropriation year.  When the Board convenes in October, they will look at putting the other appointments in line with the by laws. 

Kramer noted that by virtue of the budget that was just approved, the question arises as to whether those committees that were recommended following the organizational review last January and the current governance structure is still appropriate for now and after the services are phased out next year. He recommends that we not fill the Finance Committee chair at this time.

Wheeler reported that he recently reviewed the IHETS by laws and it is obvious that they were drafted for a different time and that the by laws need to be reconsidered and amended to fit the current organization.  He added that the 20.12.12 mandate still places responsibility of oversight of the network with IHETS.   

Kramer is recommending that we come back to the Board in October with a revised organizational model for review.  In the interim, the Executive Committee should consider the governance structure and be prepared to make governance recommendations to the Board.

The current by laws state that as Pittman moves into the Board chair position, he will need to appoint a new chair to the Finance Committee.  In addition, the former chair of the Board is to chair the Nominating Committee. 

Wheeler offered the following resolution recognizing Lloyd Benjamin’s contributions:

Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System
Board of Directors Resolution
June 13, 2007

WHEREAS Dr. Lloyd Benjamin has ably represented Indiana State University on the IHETS Board of Directors since he arrived in Indiana in 2000; and
WHEREAS Dr. Benjamin has provided exemplary leadership for the consortium as chair of the IHETS Board of Directors since 2002; and
WHEREAS Dr. Benjamin has ably guided the IHETS Board, committees, and staff through an unparalleled sequence of adversities since December 2004; and
WHEREAS Dr. Benjamin’s willingness to extend his term has helped provide stability through significant consortium review and restructuring as well as nearly annual staff reorganizations; and
WHEREAS Dr. Benjamin has graciously made himself available in a variety of state-level public forums to advocate for the work of the consortium and its members in information technology and distance learning;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the IHETS Board of Directors expresses deep appreciation for Dr. Benjamin’s leadership over the past five years; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the IHETS Board of Directors extends to Dr. Benjamin hearty good wishes in his future endeavors.

Davis seconded the resolution and it passed unanimously.

Executive Session
The staff was excused from the meeting as the Board moved into an Executive Session.

                                                                                                                                                —Minutes prepared by Julie Wheeler, Recording Secretary



Last updated: November 14, 2007