Governance Committees
APPROVED
Management Committee
August 3, 2005 – 10:00am
PRESENT
Patrick Alles, Independent Colleges of Indiana
Wayne Bohm, University of Southern Indiana
Mike Huffman, Department of Education
David Jent, Indiana University
Don Kaufman, Vincennes University
Ed Kinley, Indiana State University
William Kramer, Ivy Tech
Fred Nay, Ball State University
Dick Tully, Ivy Tech
Tim Fisher, Dave King, Tim Ping, Kevin Siminski, Julie Wheeler
Chairman Kramer called the meeting to order at 10:05am.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES- Tully moved that the minutes of the May 17, 2005 meeting be approved. Alles seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
CHAIR’S REPORT- Kramer reported that there has been a lot happening over last couple months and as we go through today’s agenda we will discuss issues that have been put on the table.
PENDING ISSUES
IHETS Review Process- King gave a brief background and context of the organizational review. He noted that this process is a direct response to legislative questions about shifting emphasis from heavy reliance on State appropriation to greater institutional support.
The Senate Appropriations Committee would like member institutions to shoulder a greater portion of the operating expenses of the consortium and that the state appropriated budget shoulder a lesser amount.
In response, we proposed to conduct a review of the IHETS operation focusing on three fundamental areas: current and future services; the basic governance and the structure of the organization.
Currently, we have solicited from various sources including Management Committee , the Board, IPSE and ITC groups, staff and other sources from individual institutions, names of potential review team members. In addition, we have drafted a timeline for the review with a January, 2006 deadline for completion and report to the Board of Directors. This timeline would allow information to be available as a precursor to 2005-06 operating budget discussions.
Kramer added that several months ago, the Board asked us to look at the governance structure of the organization. So part of this review is in part a directive of the Board. At that time, we were discussing whether IHETS should submit a proposal to operate the state network.
King reported that yesterday he met with Pres. Benjamin to discuss the Review Team list and the organizational review process. The Board will look to the Management Committee for input on whether this is a viable group and can be an effective team. Benjamin has concerns that since many of the individuals listed are senior members of the representative institutions, is it less likely that they will be able to devote the time to serve, and if they were not, it would be devastating to the overall credibility of the effort.
Benjamin suggested recasting the process slightly and requesting an External Review Team as well. The External Team would be made up of three to five individuals with national reputations that would come here, somewhat like an accreditation panel, to conduct a five-day assessment review. We would provide them with a self-assessment document up front and opportunities for them to talk with as many people as possible during that period. The External group would provide a written review as a foundation for discussions by the Internal Review Team. The External team would work with the same charge and focus on the three areas outlined.
Following a lengthy discussion, Kramer stated that the next step will be for us to go back to the Board of Directors with a proposed study methodology which would include the Internal and External teams and the timeline for completion. King will notify the Board of Directors that the Management Committee has reviewed and endorsed the general approach for the review and potential membership for the internal and external review teams and are forwarding it to the Board for approval.
IOT and the Statewide Network- King noted that IHETS did not respond to the RFP for operation of the state network. Since that time, Gerry Weaver the Chief Technology Officer at IOT, asked what it would take for IHETS to run the network. That request led IHETS into two levels of discussions- first is discussions with IOT on the fundamental operational level, i.e.: is there a way that we can come up with an agreement to operate the network?
On a philosophical level, King met with Weaver, Browning, Benjamin, and Kramer to discuss whether there are ways of agreeing that there is value to everyone involved? And are there ways of addressing the needs that would produce a win/win for everyone.
One concern was that IHETS never again be put in the position of delayed payment for the services that we provide. To this point we’ve had nothing but positive response on that issue. Secondly, is I-Light2. The Governor has assigned a task force to review the value and possible operational processes of I-Light2.
Browning brought up the issue of governance. He stated that if IHETS runs the network, they expect to see a shift in governance at IHETS. Benjamin informed him that we are already conducting a review, now with an external component, and governance is one aspect of that review. With the on-going review of I-Light2 in the same timeframe, these two review processes run parallel and we will continue the operational discussions. At the same time, we would expect to have significant input into the I-Light2 review process and we would allow and expect input from IOT into our process of reviewing governance at IHETS.
King added that he feels the External Review Team will bring information and a perspective and context of what’s going on around the country that will provide significant credibility to what we are doing.
Kramer reminded the group that the legislature led by Senator Ford appropriated $10M for I-Light2 and approximately $4M has been spent to date.
King sent information to the presidents about benefits from I-Light2. It included draft paragraphs, that could be used as they see fit, to build support at those institutions. King added that we are relying on Management Committee members to keep their Board member apprised of where we are going. He added that he is available to meet with anyone as necessary.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
IPSE- Tully reported on the Student Services Summit held on June 1st, with about 75 people in attendance. The Home Institution Model was supported as is, although they conceded divorcing the revenue sharing issues from the home institution model. There was not a lot of support for changing it to charging the originating institutions’ fees. There is still some interest in further discussions of the revenue sharing portion, and for billing the students at the home institutions rate. There was a recommendation that the Bursars brought together to look at that issue. Currently, we do not have written consortium agreements for financial aid. Financial aid organizations in the state have volunteered to draft a consortium agreement that can be used for higher education institutions. The Learner Services Team will take all the recommendations and input to develop recommendations and come back to the IPSE group in the fall.
Macromedia Breeze has been chosen for the IHETS Interactive platform to replace and enhance services currently provided by satellite. Breeze is already being used by a number of institutions. This fall the Brownbag Series will be on Breeze along with some pilot testing with a series of fall classes likely beginning in late September.
Tully added that we just finished Distance Education Week, during which the first award for Student Services was announced. The Dale E. Dowden Award for outstanding student services in distance education idea was brought forward by the ICN Coordinators. The purpose is to recognize individuals within the realm of distance education who epitomize the essence of learner centered services for which Dale Dowden was a tireless advocate throughout his tenure at the IPSE and IHETS. Tully reviewed the criteria for eligibility, stressing that the person must have demonstrated impartiality in working with multiple institutions. Tully announced that the first recipient was Margaret Seifert from Ivy Tech Madison.
ITC- Nay reported that the group met last month and discussed the possibility of lowering circuit prices. They will meet again tomorrow to discuss subsidy options.
Siminski reported that typically discussions to decide on 2005-06 subsidy options would have occurred much earlier. However, this year we got early signals in June that the State was planning to lower their circuit prices. We were officially notified what the actual reductions were about two weeks ago. Siminski reported that T1 prices were reduced about 30%, DS3 prices reduced almost 50%. At the last ITC meeting we decided to keep the subsidy model status quo until we heard what the final circuit prices would be. Now that we know we can explore options for support at the ITC meeting.
With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 11:30am.
