MERC

MERC Board of Director’s Meeting

August 24, 2005, 9:30 a.m. - Noon

Attendees: Steve Earney, Rita Gulstad, Bob Paulson, Jim Piatt (sitting in for Russell Helm), George Rickerson (MOBIUS), Chad Shepard, Robert Stein, Greg Wirth.
MOREnet Staff: Bill Giddings, Bill Mitchell, Nancy Piringer,

MERC FY06 Budget – Nancy Piringer

Piringer reviewed the MERC financial report for the year ending June 30, 2005. The MERC board had approved up to 30K to support HELIX 2005, however only $14,013 was needed and the remainder was transferred back into reserves. At FY05 year end the fund balance stood at $473,983.

Piringer reviewed the FY06 proposed budget. At the June 22nd MERC Board meeting, the Board approved using half of the existing reserves to buffer cuts to the FY06 HB3 budget. Piringer explained that an additional line is now being included in the budget sheet that shows “Connection related fees” which is separate from Member service fees. This is revenue that stems from institutions that maintain satellite campuses that are charged a $1,600 fee per site. A revenue transfer not to exceed 20K was approved at the June 22nd Board meeting to support HELIX 2006. The fund balance for FY06 will be $262,498. Gulstad would like to see a cost allocation breakdown of salaries for MERC, TNP, and REAL. Earney moved to approve the FY06 budget. Wirth seconded. All were in favor.

Piringer asked if the Board wanted to again provide one free seat to each MERC institution at the HELIX 2006 Conference. The motivation behind paying for a free seat is to increase participation in the conference; 36 institutions took advantage of the offer at the 2005 conference. There was consensus among board members that paying for the free seats and the keynote in 2006 will be close to the 20K allowed in the FY06 budget. Shepard moved to again provide one free seat per institution at the 2006 HELIX conference. Earney seconded. All were in favor.

Piringer asked the Board how they would like to handle costs for MOREnet delivered in-service training. Piringer asked if the Board wanted to pursue the same model that the K-12 TNP program uses wherein travel costs associated with the training (lodging, meals, mileage, etc.) are paid by the school that requests the training while the K-12 TNP program pays for the trainers’ costs (salary). Rickerson moved that MERC adopt a training policy similar to that of the K-12 TNP program. Shepard seconded. All were in favor.

FY06 Planning – Rita Gulstad

Gulstad opened the discussion by asking the Board what activities they feel are important for the Board and MERC to engage in for FY06. Issues/topics to consider include the reexamination of MERC goals; the relationship of MOREnet and the state; and the relationship of MOREnet and MERC. With an uncertain future in terms of funding for MOREnet, Gulstad asked what should MERC’s role be in supporting MOREnet? What does MERC value and what does MERC want to achieve? Gulstad mentioned the Vision, Purpose, and Goals document that was drafted several years ago but never formally adopted. The Board agreed that this document should be revisited at the Fall IR meeting and updated. Stein clarified that it is the MOREnet Council’s intent that either the MERC Board Chair or someone in a leadership role within MERC continue to have a seat on the Council to ensure that MERC is represented.

Earney replied that without MOBIUS and MOREnet, higher education would not be at its current level. Higher education institutions should be united in their advocacy of the benefits that MOREnet provides to them. Stein suggested that MERC’s first line of responsibility is to the MOREnet council and that finding a way for MERC members to be clearly understood by representatives on the MOREnet Council should be a priority.

Rickerson recommended that the message MERC conveys regarding advocacy for MOREnet should be figured out well ahead of time, before the next legislative session occurs. Stein proposed there are two major dimensions to the problem of advocacy: 1) The problem of the process of decision making on what requests go forward. 2) That once budget requests go forward the many supporting voices need to be coordinated.

Mitchell stated that MOREnet’s objective is to retain the current level of funding for FY07. It will be important for MERC to develop a consistent set of messages between now and Nov. 1st. Mitchell stated that value and satisfaction are important, but personal anecdotes from members that are shared with representatives are also key. Representatives may not understand what MOREnet does, but they will understand the value it is to their constituents. There are some key questions that legislators have asked, both to MOREnet and it’s members. Those questions should be focused, and institutions should be prepared to advocate based on these issues:

1. Why should the state support and invest in MOREnet?
2. Would the private sector be able to provide services more cost effectively?
3. Is internet an essential service, and if it is then why do it this way?

Mitchell stated MOREnet can and will provide standardized literature (the literature used last year is in the process of being updated) and that MOREnet can pull statistics for a member to share with representatives in order to show them how MOREnet resources are utilized.

Mitchell mentioned that MOREnet is working to acquire access to fiber in order to flatten on-going costs in the face of increasing demand for bandwidth and uncertain funding. The current backbone contract expires in February 2007 and MOREnet is working with MoDOT and several fiber vendors to develop potential long term solutions. Mitchell met with the State CIO and MOREnet Council member, Dan Ross, in early August to discuss cooperation and collaboration with the state. A follow-up meeting is expected in September.

Formation of an Advocacy Task Force was suggested along with the idea of using the ALA advocacy notebook as a model for the Task Force to use to address these issues. The task force membership should extend beyond Board membership. Shepard moved to approve the creation of the task force. Earney seconded. All were in favor.

HELIX 2006 – Nancy Piringer

HELIX 2006 will occur March 22-23, 2006. Piringer mentioned that she and the conference co-Chair, Russell Helm, have been talking about advocacy as a theme, and Helm had suggested Terry Hartle as possible keynote speaker. Shepard suggested that advocacy may be too high level a theme for the attendees, but might work as a possible track. Gulstad suggested collaboration as a possible alternative theme. This could focus on the collaboration efforts between K-12 and higher education and a keynote speaker on this topic could also address both conference audiences. There was general consensus among the board members present that collaboration is a good idea for a possible theme. Piringer will follow up with Helm.

Fall 2005 MERC IR Meeting Plans – Nancy Piringer

The fall Meeting will occur on November 1st, 2005 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and will be held at the Stony Creek Inn in Columbia (same location as last fall). Piringer mentioned that initial thoughts for a meeting focus were revolving around the theme of advocacy. “State of the State IT” was suggested as an alternative theme that could include a showcase of K-12 and higher education collaboration (i.e. AP courses), a focus on improving efficiency, and the increased K-12 requirements of schools. Piringer will map out the meeting agenda based upon the suggestions received.

Meeting adjourned at 11:48 a.m.