Learning Network of Minnesota

Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

May 5, 2011

Board Members Present/ (Not Present)

System CIOs/LNM Officers: CIO/VP U of M: Steve Cawley (Chair); CIO/VC MnSCU: Darrell Huish (Vice-Chair)

Regional Board Chairs or Designee: Steve Cawley/METNET; Ken Ries/CMDLN; Doug Allen/SHOT; Bob Griggs/NETS; Michael Olesen/COMET; Jeff Sinks, Proxy for Jason Davis/NEAT

CIO Representatives: CIO Four-Year Campus: Kristi Tornquist/St. Cloud State University; CIO University of Minnesota Campus: John Butler; (CIO Two-Year Campus): Bill Dowden/Riverland Community College)

At-Large Representatives: Sue Collins/Northeast Higher Education District; Sally Johnstone/ Provost /VP for Academic Affairs/Winona State University

Ex-Officio Regional Directors: Dan Baun/SHOT; Jim Bovee/NEAT; Penelope Dickhudt/CMDLN; Douglas Lund/METNET & COMET; Jeff Sinks/NETS

Staff: Administrative Assistant: Christine Benner/OOC/MnSCU; Director: Penelope Dickhudt/OOC/MnSCU; LMN Business Administrator: Jamie Nordstrom/OOC/MnSCU

Others Present: Lance Cunningham, U of M/Streaming Project Manager; Jamie Nordstrom, OOC/MnSCU; Ann Hill-Duin, U of M; Mike Janke OOC/MnSCU: John Miller, OIT U of M

1.  Welcome, Introductions, Review of Agenda

Vice Chancellor Huish, called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm, May 5, 2010.

Vice Chancellor Huish reported that Dr. John O’Brien Director of METNET would be joining us at the next meeting.

2.  Approval of Minutes, December 2, 2010 Action

The Board reviewed the minutes of December 2, 2010. A motion that the Board approves the minutes was made by Kristi Tornquist and seconded by Ken Ries. The motion passed.

3.  LNM Budget Report Info/Action

a.  Current Fiscal Review

Jamie Nordstrom, MnSCU LNM Fiscal Administrator provided a report on the Learning Network’s budget expenditures in FY10 and an up to date expenditure for FY11. The Budget for FY11 is in scope. Some of the regions are setting aside funds for the streaming project.

Looking back at FY10 some regions did not spend all of their available funds. Some of the funds were carried over for the infrastructure project (which is a two-year project).

b.  Legislative Funding Update

Jamie Nordstrom reported that both the house and senate bills include cuts to the Learning Network Board. The Senate bill proposes a cut of seven hundred and forty thousand and the House is proposing six hundred and thirty thousand dollars in cuts. . The hope is to have this committee approve the budget by July 1; however, this action will be on hold until the bill is approved.

Penny Dickhudt indicated that in the past this committee has conducted Budget approval by electronic vote and proposed that the committee use this method again; in the event that the legislature does not approve the bill before the June 2, 2011 meeting. The attendees approved conducting an electronic vote on the budget as needed.

Jamie Nordstrom suggested that the 10% match, which was taken out of the contract, be put back. This will help us with discussions with the Legislature. They had questions about what the money was used for and who contributed to covering the cost of the services used by the schools. The Board approved putting the 10% back into the request. The members are making this 10% match so there is no reason to add this back into the report. The language on the contract will state that the expenditures must be equal to 110%.

c.  FY12 Regional Funding Scenarios

Jeff Sinks provided a report on different FY12 Regional Funding scenarios including six, thirteen and sixteen percent cuts in the budget. This represents the tentative plans and the impact that will have on the regions. The regions are aware that the cuts could be worse than 16%.

Doug Lund and Penny Dickhudt provided a report on the consequences of the cuts, for instance delays in upgrades and not replacing equipment, which will increase maintenance costs or cuts to services. The upgrades to the infrastructure will produce cost savings.

4.  Blue Print Document, Second Reading Info/Action

a.  Review

Jim Bovee, Project Lead presented the Blue Print Document for second reading. This document was created to eliminate redundancy with consolidating the information. It introduces the Learning network and serves as a guide in their collaborative efforts, including principals, goals and responsibilities. It also establishes standards that will be used by the participants. The attendees expressed their support for the blueprint and appreciation for the comprehensive yet succinct document. Within the Future portion of the document, the word creature will be revised to creator.

A motion to approve the Blue Print document as amended was made by Sue Collins and seconded by Kristi Tornquist. The motion passed.

5.  Streaming Project Status Info

a.  RFP Status

Lance Cunningham presented confidential information as it relates to the Streaming Project RFP. The RFP was released in December with proposals due in January. Presentations took place in March. There were two responses to the RFP. One of those has been determined to be a viable solution. Currently negotiations with the company are taking place. A public forum was held at the end of March. Both the U of M and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities constituents were invited. The response was positive; although the attendees expressed concern about functionality. Another session was held to review the technical aspects. Issues were identified; however, the resolutions to the issues were on the vendor’s six months to one-year road map to integrate.

Lance Cunningham reviewed additional technical requirements that need resolution including making sure that interface with Moodle 2.0 becomes a priority and resolution of issues involving integration with D2L. The vendor is currently in negotiations with D2L to resolve these issues.

b.  Fiscal Considerations

A site model approach to licensing will be used. This consists of a three-year ramp-up in cost and lets implementation grow with the maximum level of flexibility in order to adapt. It simplifies the budget, cost sharing and will allow thoughtful migration of users over time. Negotiations continue on caps for volume streaming, bandwidth and storage.

The regions have agreed to pay approximately 1.5 million over three years, using the funds they set aside for this project. Both the U of M and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities need to work on funding details pending legislative appropriations.

c.  Timeline Benchmarks

Lance Cunningham provided a high-level description on the three-year implementation plan for the University of Minnesota and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. Each plan involved integration with Moodle and D2L, resolution of technical issues in year one like implementing Star ID authentication, and development of a full deployment plan in year two. In year two and three, work will include wide scale integration and deployment and expanded user adoption.

d.  Next Steps

·  Finalize the contract with the vendor

·  Resolve issues and approve the budget for the project.

·  Develop internal resource requirements, like staffing

6.  Communication Regions--Directors Info/Action

a.  Shared Network Status—Lund Comet/MetNet Regional Director Project Lead

Doug Lund provided a report on the status of the Shared Network. At the last meeting, approval was given to consolidating the regional video infrastructure. Doug Lund presented the diagrams of this consolidation. The Directors have agreed to go with alternative number one. A request for bid is being prepared. The requirements will be equipment model specific. The next step will be to complete the purchase and begin implementation planning which not only includes how to put the infrastructure in place but also how it will be managed, what the memorandum of understanding will be, how it will be funded, and how this will expand as regions retire their systems and expand this consolidation infrastructure.

This plan moves some services from OET ti the regions consolidation hub site. OET’s response has been to offer alternative services. In the plan selected, OET had offered to provide services by managing the hardware call centers for areas like the LMN telepresence Router Cube. If this continues to be an option, it will result in significant cost savings. The next step is to meet with OET explore the options on having them provide services without a derogation of the service or the capabilities.

b.  Government Shut Down Preparedness

Dan Baun the SHOT Regional Director has reserves that they will be able to tap into to continue to provide services. In the case of a state government shutdown, if the approval to do so comes through. The dialogs taking place will center on essential services. In the north East it will be tricky as NEAT manages connection points that provide services to city, county and state agencies including emergency services. When you talk about shutting down data centers there is a cascading effect on many other agencies. Darrel Huish will provide a briefing to the government relations team on the dependency emergency services has on the system’s technology

7.  Other Info

a.  FY12 Meeting Dates (SEP 1, DEC 1-2011/MAR 1, JUN 7-2012)

The members decided to hold on the June meeting, depending on the legislative session if delayed approval of the budget may take place electronically.

Beginning in September the meetings will take place at the Minnesota State College and Universities, Office of the Chancellor.

b.  FY12 Chair & Meeting Site

c.  Other

Next Meeting:

September 1, 2011

1:00 – 3:00 p.m.

Conference Room 3304 WFP

May 5, 2011 Learning Network Board Notes Page 4