Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education
July 6, 2007
Meeting Notes

Present: Becky Nickoli, Co-chair, Ivy Tech; Ron Davis and Shanni Simmons, Vincennes; Mike Eddy, PU; Becky Whitaker, InCoLSA; Dana Willett, USI
IHETS staff: Carol Brunty, Alison Jensen, Bill Kramer, Bob Noe, Tim Paige, Susan Scott

Nickoli convened the meeting at 10:15 a.m., postponing action items until a quorum should be present.

Home Institution Model
Nickoli and Scott reviewed the follow-up materials from the Student Services Forum (previously circulated), noting the persistent call for more specific information about exactly what the Commission for Higher Education staff seek in making the shift from home to originating institution reporting of enrollments. Several members expressed concern that having the CHE sort the data would result in inaccuracies, suggesting the central coordination and reporting of the data might help avoid that. Eddy put forward a proposal to operationalize the central database at IHETS for such reporting, with the added suggestion of coordinated billing to help bursars work more easily with net payments. Willett noted, however that full information about students will still need to reside with the home institution and that institutions will still need to report to the CHE on successful registrations.

Nickoli summarized that the key question for the CHE staff is the level of detail needed and for what purpose. The group agreed that staff should arrange a conference call between CHE staff and the home institution task group (augmented by other IPSE members who wish to participate) to resolve questions. There was general agreement that the institutions want to do what they can but need further detail in order to know how quickly any changed reporting can begin.

Discussion continued regarding financial split of tuition between home and originating institutions. Willett noted that USI has invested considerable time in identifying the exact services which the home institution provides, for which there is a real cost. Under the original model, the revenue shared and retained were approximately equal (a 50/50 split including enrollment adjustment funding received and amount forwarded to the originating institutions). The proposed change would shift the split to about 20/80 in USI’s case; keeping $150 per course per student is insufficient to cover the administrative and academic-advising costs of supporting the enrollment. Davis noted that there is a residual from the four-year average basis for enrollment adjustment funding that would provide the opportunity to step down the transition for participating institutions. Willett pointed out that it will take three years to mitigate the negative impact on USI and proposed moving from a 70/30 to 90/10 with cap over those years. Davis stated that Vincennes will lose about $200,000 for the second year but is willing to take the loss to help the reporting shift occur. Another perspective to keep in mind is the possibility of opening a new market by helping make participation attractive for the independent institutions.

Staff agreed to expand the comparative spreadsheets with more tuition-split alternatives and circulate for further review. Members agreed that it is critical to have the CHE meeting and circulate the basic cost review as soon as possible in July with the hope that action can be taken at the scheduled August 3 meeting.

Minutes of June 1 meeting
A quorum being present, Nickoli identified one correction on the June 1 meeting notes (should have read June 27 rather than July 27). There being no other corrections, the minutes were approved as corrected.

IHETS Board of Directors report
Kramer reported that the Board’s full-day retreat on June 5 was well attended and provided general direction for budget preparation. At its June 13 business meeting, the Board approved an operating budget for 2007-08 and, for planning purposes, a tentative budget for 2008-09. For next year, the budget continues all current services except for Professional Development. He noted that working forums such as the June 27 student services meeting and specific training activities are not included in the defined Professional Development category and will continue as needed. For the following year’s planning purposes, only ICN, IHETS Interactive, I-Light, and video streaming would be continued. There was discussion of the need for a new video bridge to keep the videoconference service viable for even one more year, with alternatives for member partnerships still being pursued. To meet this budget, the central staff is being reduced by 12 positions (plus two who had already announced their resignations), from 32 to 18. The remaining staff will be cross-trained to help cover essential responsibilities from the positions eliminated.

The Board appointed a transition planning committee to work with Kramer on the staffing as well as revising the job description for an executive director and revising IHETS’ by-laws. The executive director position is ready to be advertised. A three-person committee (Lloyd Wright, Jeff Pittman, and James Dworken) will conduct the local and national search, hoping to have a recommendation to the IHETS Board at its October meeting.

IHETS, ICN, and metrics
Scott and Noe summarized the core group of metrics proposed to PROBE staff for inclusion in 2007-08 dashboard reports. The number is deliberately kept small for manageability in this first year and also for flexibility given that the IHETS operating committees have not yet identified metrics for the services. In the case of ICN, the proposed metrics were those staff believed would continue to be of interest to members and would need to be monitored whatever other metrics may also be identified. Specifically, they are: number of courses and programs listed in the online database (output), number of searches of the online database (output), and number of cross-institutional registrations through the Home Institution Model (outcome).

Kramer encouraged the institutions to consider other meaningful metrics but also to understand the PROBE perspective. The general philosophy used through the past year’s service review can continue to be a guideline: value of services and participation across multiple institutions. He encouraged discussion at a future meeting, or perhaps appointment of a subcommittee to bring recommendations to the full committee in several weeks.

Nickoli reminded the group that the next meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 3 with the hope of being able to take action on Home Institution Model revision at that time.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.