Contact Us   Archive   Sitemap

  
http://draft.ihets.org/about/gvn/board/board2007_10_30.html

APPROVED 12.14.07

IHETS BOARD OF DIRECTORS  
October 30, 2007 – 10:00am
IHETS Boardroom – Indianapolis

PRESENT:

GUESTS:

IHETS STAFF

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pittman called the meeting to order at 10:05 am and introductions were made.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moseley moved that the minutes of the June 13, 2007 be approved as circulated.  Davis seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

EBS Legal Issues - Kramer welcomed Robert Rini and asked him to report on the two contracts that are on the table, the bankruptcy situation in Fort Wayne and give overview of the EBS standing.  Rini reported that for most of the last year we have been negotiating 18 licenses currently under lease with Sprint and at the same time we have five other channel groups that we put out for RFP and ClearWire responded with the most beneficial proposal.

With respect to ClearWire, we have one outstanding issue, that is, one of our licenses for the Fort Wayne area is involved in bankruptcy proceedings.  An application had been filed with the FCC to transfer the license to the PBS station in Fort Wayne, however that application was never granted by the FCC.  The PBS station was under the assumption that the license would be approved and proceeded with a lease agreement.  Rini stated that it is our view that since the application was never approved, no basis exists for a claim of ownership by the trustees.  It is expected that pending resolution of the case, a proportional amount of lease revenue will be put in escrow.  Negotiations are underway to identify a value attributable to the Fort Wayne license. Rini is working closely with Tom Yoder, a bankruptcy attorney, to prepare the response which is due on Friday.  The agreement with ClearWire is nearly complete but because ClearWire had to evaluate how to deal with the bankruptcy action in context of the agreement, there has been a delay in finalizing it.   

Rini stated that he sees an opportunity to settle and the buyout figure in mind is between $10K and 20K.  He will try to get a number on the table and confer with Yoder to see what would be appropriate. Davis moved that the Board authorize the Executive Director to work with the attorneys to reach a settlement with authorization not to exceed $100K.  Kinley seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. 

With respect to the Sprint agreement on the renegotiation which involves $1M signing bonus, Sprint is willing to work with us to clean up and renegotiate the non-financial terms of the agreement. He believes that we are about a month out from finalizing both agreements. The key materials terms are in place but we still have about ten open issues to resolve.    One of the unique benefits of the Sprint agreement is that they have committed to the extent that they are not using our capacity, for each of the channel groups we can build our own WiMAX campus-wide system so that we could take control of our channels in the event they do not launch a service that we can piggyback.  Rini added that we do not have to pay Sprint to use the 5% in reservation that the FCC requires to be held aside for our use.  There is a certain number of monthly credits that we get to use Sprint services and we should have the ability in both agreements to meet our minimum obligations.  If at some point one of the schools wants to do more than the minimum, then we would need to pay for those services.  In addition, if we build a station between now and 2011, when Sprint would have to have a station up and running itself, Sprint would not be required to reimburse us.

Kramer noted that one of the assignments for the EBS Task Force will be to look at opportunities for using this spectrum between now and when Sprint might build a station and what kinds of uses it might make of that.  Smitherman added that Ball State has been experimenting with WiMAX to see what kind of coverage they could get and have found some very positive things.

Legal Issues - Kramer reported that he had been in contact with Dave Hensel, the Board’s legal representative with the US Attorney’s case against Intelenet in which we were implicated because we were providing the network service.  The US Attorney focused attention on AT&T/ATSCO who had filed applications for e-rate funds for the k-12 schools.  The US Attorney thought ATSCO was involved because they were knowledgeable about what internet service costs and might be part of a conspiracy to get more money then they should.  ATSCO implicated IHETS as the operator of the network and indicated that those costs came from IHETS.  Kramer hasn’t heard anything from Hensel on the matter in the last 8-10 months so we are assuming the case is dormant at this time but whether we will hear anything in the future is yet to be seen. 

EXECUTIVE SESSION
The group moved into Executive Session with Board members only, to discuss personnel matters.

GENERAL SESSION
Search and Screen Committee Report – As a report out of the Executive Session, Chair Pittman read a resolution stating that the name of Dr. Dennis A. Trinkle be approved by the IHETS Board of Directors to fill the position of Executive Director as recommended by the Search and Screen Committee.  Wright seconded the resolution for approval and it passed unanimously. 

TRANSITION COMMITTEE REPORT
Mission Discussion - Kramer reported that following the June meeting we had sent the members of the Transition and Executive committees a draft of the various alternatives to the mission statement and revised bylaws for discussion and feedback.  We are now ready to bring both documents before the Board for discussion and action.  Pittman added that we have three mission alternatives for consideration and he has received the most committee support for the third mission alternative. 

Davis feels that the first alternative has too much detail, the second doesn’t have enough and the third alternative is just right.

Giesecke stated that he is inclined to agree.  The third alternative captures the essence as well as we can at this point. 

Wheeler stated that “as well as we can” may be the qualifying point.  He feels the third alternative is still very long for a mission statement and wonders if we are trying to carry too many messages.  The bylaws state it is a consortium of these certain sets of institutions and their particular needs.  So much of this still has such great ambiguity.  We need to pause, as a collective membership, and look at what we need from a consortium.  The new director deserves clear and simple guidance. 

Moseley stated that the first sentence in alternative three is clear and succinct and makes a good mission statement in itself.  Then there are three strategies that we might not want to formally adopt as a mission statement.  But rather ways of implementing the mission that could be subject to change from time to time. 

Regarding the first sentence, Wheeler commented that he isn’t sure that this body has ever done anything related to research and has been more about education and service engagement.  Kramer noted that we do not do the research but the emphasis is on the support of that research and the network supports the research efforts of the institutions.   There has been a lot recently on open-source and that represents a form of research.  While IHETS staff doesn’t operate the network, IHETS still has responsibility for the network.  So it is through that responsibility that the research is supported and numerous other examples.

Wheeler questioned whether PROBE will ask what we are doing in the area of research?  Although institutions do have a research, teaching and service mission, the broader we make this, the more criteria we get asked about how we are measuring up to our mission.  The narrower we make it, the clearer the direction to the executive director and staff. 

As an example, Kramer reported that the school of medicine has a project using video conferencing to connect to others across the country.  He considers that to be use of the technology that supports the research being done by the university even though we are only providing the communication channel. IHETS is not an easily understood organization in that we are not an entity unto ourselves.  We are the staff that supports the work of the consortium. 

Davis suggests that “research” be moved down more to the end of the list so that it doesn’t sound like the most important function.  He added that some of the research we should be about is how students learn using this technology.  We have the potential to receive a good amount of funds if the EBS licenses go through and we should be using that entrepreneurially and furthering what this organization is all about.

Huffman stated that some might think of research as academic research, but from a K12 perspective he reads it more as technology innovation and that is where IHETS has been helpful to the k12 community.

Wheeler stated that we are principally and historically about education but in the IPSE committee the response was always that ICN is valuable but everything else was very distant and fell off very fast.  We can get entrepreneurial and creative about ways to spend money but many of those things, particularly research and the various forms of technology, are going on locally.  Wheeler is not sure that is a business we should be in and has much caution for manufacturing ideas that the membership is not coming forward and they need and value. 

Smitherman feels that this is where the discussion needs to go over the next few months.  We need to look at whether there is something that comes out of the collaborative that maybe hasn’t happened in the past or hasn’t been realized but should be considered.  His inclination is that the third alternative provides at least a foundation for the discussion and asks some of the questions that were asked early on.  It is valid to ask whether IHETS should continue in the future and if so what should it be and it would be hard to defend continuing to do what we’ve done and ask for money to do it.  His view is there are a huge number of things that might be done by the collaborative that aren’t being done and we have the opportunity over the next year or so to look at whether we want to do some of them. 

Wheeler recommended tabling this for further discussion.  He added that he is not convinced that the name isn’t part of the problem.  The opportunity to do something for the state with this money may be more to concentrate on a P-20 mission of technology. 

Wheeler has reservations about stating that staff coordinates the use of the fiber optic network.  We oversee policy about things that are allowable and the MOU, but we don’t coordinate how faculty and staff at institutions use it.  In addition, IHETS does not provide the technology.  Part of the fiber is owned by the state and other is leased from carries around the state.  At the last meeting, the Board voted not to own the technology any longer and to get out of the video conferencing business. 

Wheeler stated that the key point in the first sentence, is “supporting the missions” of the member institutions. 

As recommended, Pittman will take the mission statement alternatives back to the Executive Committee for further discuss and refinement.  Wheeler suggested that we might also ask for input from the new executive director.

Bylaws discussion – Kramer noted that the draft document was sent out with the meeting packets.  He made one correction, on page 17, Section 5 – under “Election”– at its September meeting of the “odd” numbered year rather than even.  The officers will be appointed every two years and that will put it in sync with the new budget cycle. 

Wheeler commented on Section 4 under “Meetings”, it states we will hold five meetings each year and designates the months.  Perhaps we should use more general wording to allow for more flexibility in terms of scheduling the meetings.  Kramer noted that Board members had expressed interest in scheduling regular meetings on their calendars.  Davis requested that we make a notation that meetings are held Eastern Time.

Under “Committees”, the group discussed whether we need to codify the operating committees in the bylaws noting that as the mission changes the committee needs might change.  We might consider rephrasing it to state that the Executive Committee will appoint operating and ad hoc committees as needed.   

Kramer commented that we have a set of services (e-learning and technology). The technology services will decrease over the next couple years but it will be critical for us to do everything we can to get more involvement and participation.  It is possible that after we change the home institution model many institutions in the state might find using distance education more attractive.  The staff needs the guidance and input of the member institutions through the committee representation. 

Wright stated that there is a trend in organizations to have the highest flexibility in the bylaws.  We should consider allowing flexibility in the operating committees.  We could have board members as chairs of the subcommittees, but we should also have flexibility to find the best expertise. 

The group questioned why it is proposed that we drop the Finance Committee.  Pittman stated that the proposed treasurer would replace the Finance Committee and work closely with the staff and report to the Board.  This would avoid bringing a committee together that might not have enough to do.  Kramer added that we are a department of Indiana University so purchasing and financial transactions are scrutinized just as any other department of the university.

Additional suggested revisions:

At the request of Board members, Pittman will work with the Executive Committee to review and modify the mission and bylaws and the documents will be returned to the Board for final approval. 

PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE
Home Institution Model – Nickoli reminded the group why the Home Institution Model had been reviewed.  It was done to update and correct certain situations that were likely not foreseen at the inception of the model.  It had become less attractive for the participation of independent colleges because of the phenomenon that the high percentage of the high cost institution would flow in the direction of the lower cost institution. 

The three biggest participants in the ICN are Purdue, Vincennes and Ivy Tech with much of the traffic flowing from Purdue to Ivy Tech and Vincennes.  The changes that are suggested to make this a more equitable model would be an actual change in the flow of tuition revenue from 90% of the home institution’s tuition being sent to the originator, up to 100% of the originator’s regular resident tuition and technology fee to equal no more than 90% of the home institution’s tuition.  If you are primarily an exporter of students in the system, you will likely be keeping much more of your tuition.  If you tend to be an importer, of students, you will be receiving much less tuition, however, you will qualify for enrollment change funding from the state.  The subcommittee that worked on changes to the model included representation from the three biggest users on ICN.  As Purdue does not qualify for enrollment change funding anyway, they have been unable to avail themselves of the benefit in the previous model. 

Nickoli credited Davis for the enrollment change feature of this as one that would be found more acceptable by the major importers.  Davis replied that he finds it fascinating that the Commission thought that this was already occurring in this particular way.  While it does some reallocation of funding, there is a net increase in the funding that goes to the institutions at the expense of the state treasury. 

The consortium agreement for financial aid remains much the same although it was reviewed by financial aid directors and decided that the home institution model would be reviewed more regularly than has occurred in the past. 

Nickoli stated that the changes will serve and update any inequities that existed in the Home Institution Model, and that this should be a model that attracts more participation by the private institutions into the system because less revenue would be given away and yet the menu of courses could be very appealing. 

Kinley suggested a change under the second bullet point – remove the word “reports” and “enrollment for” until the mechanics for doing so have been resolved.  This does specify that the originating institution will report the enrollment adjustment and we haven’t reached agreement on that. 

Following discussion, Kinley moved adoption with the modification to point two to read, “That the origination institutions receives all or most of its standard tuition and for public institutions, the enrollment adjustment funding from the State.”  The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. 

Kramer acknowledged the considerable work of Susan Scott over the last 3-4 years to get the Home Institution Model revised.

EBS Task Force – Smitherman reported that we are at the point where we need to be able to move forward with the final leg of negotiations with the licenses.  He suggested that rather than waiting until the Board meets next, that we consider empowering the Executive Committee to respond to whatever alternatives may come forward.  There are only a few items left to negotiate including the indemnification issue and some decision regarding the Fort Wayne license.  Rozewski moved that we empower the Executive Committee to finalize the EBS negotiations and agreements based on the discussions that have taken place today.  Moseley seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Kramer noted that agreements will need to go back to the EBS Task Force first.  The contracts are written so the lessor is the university and IHETS.  So they will go back to the universities to someone with signatory authority. They will then go to the FCC for approval.  We will count on Board members to shuffle it through the respective institutions for signature.

Davis added that it will be critical that we identify the plans for using the EBS funds.  Kramer noted that $750K is committed to reimburse IU for agreeing to build the network from Terre Haute to Carlisle to Evansville so Vincennes can connect and the consortium will determine how the remaining is allocated.  He added that out of the appropriation, $770K is going to circuit subsidies.  If in 2 years we don’t get the appropriation that we need, this Board may decide circuit subsidy should continue or increase, driving down institutional costs.   
Wheeler commented that the Sprint deal could largely subsidize the entire network which could lower or even eliminate the network costs. Smitherman stated that the TechOps Committee has had those same discussions.    

Indiana Public Affairs Network Update – Wright reported that following the last budget session, $4M was set aside to create an Indiana public affairs network to provide more accessible coverage of government information through the Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.  Then Chairman Lloyd Benjamin asked Wright to chair a subcommittee to help create a plan for a network using the $4M allocated with oversight from IHETS and its Board. 

From that time we formed two subcommittees, the Program Service Model Subcommittee and a Technology Subcommittee.  The Program Services group has been looking at what this service will ultimately look like.  What they are imagining is a 24-7 service that will be distributed on one of the multicast stations, one of the standard definition channels of the eight public television stations statewide.  A good portion of that day would include coverage of state government, gavel to gavel coverage of the general assembly, opportunities for the executive branch to deliver information as well as the judicial branch. 

The Technology Subcommittee is looking at the interconnection considerations to the I-Light fiber network, equipment needs at the stations and how to create a central hub for the master control.  Those groups have been meeting by conference call on a weekly basis since May and in June we began meeting monthly with the key constituents at the Statehouse that are interested in this project and led by Senator David Long.  The interested constituents have grown in number and the monthly meetings include all four caucuses with the chiefs of staff of the House and Senate Democrats and Republicans.  Also involved are representatives from the Governor’s office, State Budget Agency, Indiana Cable Association, public broadcasting, the press secretaries for each of the caucuses and a representative from the judicial branch.  Each of them brings their own ideas about how the service should operate and who should control it. .  Obviously with this much input this has gotten complicated as everyone wants to have some level of control. 

Wright announced that the Indiana public broadcasting stations have received final approval from the governor’s office to connect to I-Light, clearing the way for implementation of the Indiana Channel. There had been a prohibition on that due to the MOU that had existed between the state and the universities. This had been a stumbling block to deliver the service through the I-Light fiber network and for the Indiana public television stations to be interconnected.  In addition, this will allow the Technology Committee and the staff of the I-Light fiber network to release an RFP for last mile connective of the stations to the network as well as a second RFP that involves the equipment necessary at each of the stations to connect and be part of this network. 

Wright said that they had hoped that this project would have moved along so that by start of the next general assembly the Indiana Channel could have been in a pilot phase.  Chitwood has indicated that it will take 4-6 months from the time and RFP is released to have the connections necessary to launch this so we are now setting sites of January, 2009 to be up and running with the full Indiana Channel.

Kramer believes there is a parallel with this and the other appropriation that was made to IHETS.  The $7M for the black fiber network and he asked Chitwood to give an update on where we are with that project. 

Wheeler stated that he doesn’t feel the two are intertwined and that the State Budget Agency feels they are separate as well.  He stated that his understanding is that the $4M appropriation is to get the network up and running and get all the public broadcasting stations connected, but the next question is how will they sustain it and will there need to be legislative appropriation each year?  Wright agreed that the $4M was intended to be used for capital needs and the technology which would likely approach $3M, leaving some funds to operate.  Wright added that legislators expect that we will be coming back to the general assembly for an additional request.  The committees have discussed a model that would have the potential to generate some revenue on its own through traditional corporate underwriting, public and private foundations.  He added that they have been in conversations with the Lilly Endowment and they have expressed strong interest in the project. 

Black Fiber Task Force Report – Noe reported that 19 campuses are now connected to the I-Light fiber optic network.  It is expected that 51 of the 72 IHETS member locations will eventually be connected if they have not already.  21 campuses are currently uncommitted. 

I-Light was awarded a contract to IFW/Zayo to begin the build from Carlisle to Vincennes.  The goal is to have constructed completed by end of January, 2008.  I-Light is providing disaster recovery connections to the State as well. 

In October the SBA requested numbers relating to the cost of the last mile builds and suggested the release of an aggregated RFP to accomplish this task.  The I-Light team suggested going with several smaller RFPs that will allow I-light to take advantage of vendor build-outs in certain areas.  This approach will allow I-Light to better leverage existing vendor infrastructure on a region-by-region basis.  It is unlikely that any one vendor could answer a consolidated RFP since a great deal of engineering work would drag the process out.  Discussions with SBA will be ongoing. 

Wheeler stated that he remains hopeful that Zayo will be a good partner and provider.

FINANCIAL REPORT
IHETS FY 07-08 Report – Beyer reported that we are on track with our budget at the end of this 1st quarter.  Revenue is up 34% because of the carry-forward monies.  We anticipated a $574,000.00 carry-forward with $375,000 committed to the FY 07-08 budget leaving approximately $199,000 uncommitted.  After closing the FY 06-07, the final numbers were a carry-forward of approximately $740,000.00, again with $375,242.00 being committed to the FY 07-08 budget, now leaving us with approximately $365,743.00 uncommitted, giving us an additional $166,000 in revenue uncommitted.

We are on target with expenses at 25% of the budget.  We have purchased this first quarter the “Bridge” at about $130,000.00.  Legal fees for the EBS licenses contract negotiations and the Tel-Sat bankruptcy this quarter has been at about $45,000.00.

RESOLUTIONS
Pittman read the following resolution presented in recognition of service to the Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System (IHETS) and the citizens of the State of Indiana;



WHEREAS Dr. O’Neal Smitherman has given generously of his time and expertise to advance the purposes of the Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System; and
WHEREAS Dr. Smitherman’s leadership of the Technical Applications and Operations Committee has resulted in untold benefits to consortium members and affiliates, and
WHEREAS Dr. Smitherman’s advocacy for and representation of IHETS to government leaders and officials has brought strength and credibility to the IHETS consortium, and
WHEREAS Dr. Smiterhman’s involvement in and insights for the use of the Educational Broadcast Station licenses managed by IHETS will bring numerous opportunities and benefits to consortium members in years to come;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the IHETS Board of Directors expresses on behalf of the whole organization its deep appreciation for his tireless commitment to the purposes and priorities of the IHETS consortium, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the IHETS Board of Directors extends to Dr. Smitherman best wishes for success in his new position.

Nickoli read the following resolution presented in recognition of over 33 years of service to the Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System (IHETS) and the citizens of the State of Indiana;

WHEREAS Susan B. Scott has provided exemplary leadership for the Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System consortium; and
WHEREAS Susan Scott has been an articulate and persistent advocate for interinstitutional collaboration in strengthening access to postsecondary education in Indiana; and
WHEREAS Susan Scott has worked tirelessly to encourage IHETS participation in the activities of the organizations and consortiums at the regional and national level thereby engendering recognition and visibility for IHETS, and
WHEREAS Susan Scott has provided outstanding service in supporting the priorities of the Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education committee and its numerous accomplishments;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the IHETS Board of Directors expresses on behalf of the whole organization its deep appreciation for Susan B. Scott’s exemplary service to IHETS over the past 33 years; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the IHETS Board of Directors extends to Susan B. Scott hearty good wishes in her future endeavors.

Kinley read the following resolution presented in recognition of over 33 years of service to the Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System (IHETS) and the citizens of the State of Indiana;

WHEREAS Max A. Gordon made countless contributions in the research, development and implementation of technologies used throughout the consortium; and
WHEREAS Mr. Gordon was instrumental in restoring Internet connectivity and networking services to Mississippi and Louisiana college campuses in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
WHEREAS Mr. Gordon managed the ITFS/EBS and FCC activities as they evolved, and
WHEREAS Mr. Gordon ably represented the IHETS consortium on numerous committees;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the IHETS Board of Directors expresses on behalf of the whole organization its deep appreciation for Max Gordon’s exemplary service to IHETS over the past 33 years; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the IHETS Board of Directors extends to Mr. Gordon hearty good wishes in his future endeavors.

Pittman read the following resolution presented in recognition of over 10 years of service to the Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System (IHETS) and the citizens of the State of Indiana;

WHEREAS Mr. Timothy Fisher has provided exemplary leadership for the Indiana Higher Education Telecommunication System consortium as the Director of Business Services; and
WHEREAS Mr. Fisher explored and introduced a variety of new applications and technologies to enable the staff to effectively manage IHETS’ ever changing resources, transactions and information needs; and
WHEREAS Mr. Fisher negotiated the relocation of the IHETS consortium from its former location on the IUPUI campus to its current modern facility with increased security and space for expansion; and
WHEREAS Mr. Fisher’s tireless direction of the day-to-day business affairs of the organization through an unparalleled sequence of adversities since December 2004; and
WHEREAS Mr. Fisher has provided stability through significant consortium review, restructuring and several staff reorganizations;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the IHETS Board of Directors expresses on behalf of the whole organization its deep appreciation for Tim Fisher’s exemplary service to IHETS over the past ten years; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the IHETS Board of Directors extends to Mr. Fisher hearty good wishes in his future endeavors.

NEW BUSINESS
Kramer reported that we are in negotiations with Indiana University to sublease a portion of our office space to a possible co-tenant.  Additional information will be passed along as it becomes available.

NEXT MEETING
The next Board meeting will be held on Friday, December 14, 2007 via audio conference. 

The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.



Last updated: January 16, 2008