Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, April 7, 2005, Washington, D.C.

Attending: John Bucher, Kathleen Christoph, Perry Hanson, Brian Hawkins, John Hitt, Rebecca King, Jeffrey Noyes, Margaret Plympton, Robyn Render, David Smallen, George Strawn, and Ellen Waite-Franzen

Absent: David Ward

Also present: Clifford Lynch and staff members Denny Farnsworth, Cynthia Golden, Mark Luker, and Diana Oblinger

The meeting was called to order by Chair Perry Hanson at 12:35 p.m.

Motion: That the minutes from the January 26, 2005 Board meeting be approved.
Motion made by: Kathy Christoph
Seconded by: Jeff Noyes
Passed by unanimous vote

Update on CNI

Cliff Lynch provided an update on the Coalition for Networked Information. CNI is a joint project of EDCAUSE and the ARL and it operates under ARL’s corporate auspices. CNI seeks to further collaborations involving scholarship, research, education, and new technologies.

  • CNI is guided by a steering committee chaired by Richard West and includes Brian Hawkins, Duane Webster and nine other members. The nine other members are appointed for staggered three-year terms.
  • CNI has approximately 200 members and all revenue comes from dues. Dues for the coming years will be just under $6,000. Membership has been steady over the past five years.
  • CNI is on target for this year with respect to income and expenditures.
  • CNI maintains a reserve of approximately $125,000 for unexpected challenges or opportunities. This is an intentionally small amount, and is kept small with the understanding that in an extreme situation, EDUCAUSE and ARL would be called upon to supplement that amount.
  • CNI Program – The handout represents a snapshot of what’s important for the coming year. The program focuses on four major areas:
    • Advocacy and Policy – This is an important role in which CNI reaches out to its community.
    • Content – In this section, there is a strong focus on institutional asset management. Related are the implications of e-science and research, both of which make heavy use of digital data.
    • Organizations – CNI works closely with NLII; considerable time has been spent during the past couple of years on non-classroom learning spaces and on organizational strategies and structures to support the new learning spaces
    • Technology – Much time has been spent on authentication, access management, and identity management. CNI has worked closely with Internet 2 and the [email protected] program.
  • Two major meetings are held each year for the membership. The most recent meeting just concluded this week in Washington. The fall meeting will be in Phoenix in early December.


President’s Report

  • The 2004 Business Audit and Management Letter were distributed. The Management Letter is very brief because the auditors found no material issues.
  • The EDUCAUSE Core Data Service now has over 850 participants and is ahead of last year. The survey is up in participation in every category of schools except for liberal arts colleges. Participation will probably be up 6% over last year when the cycle is completed.
  • In 2006, the COSTS project, a survey and set of benchmarking analyses led by Dave Smallen, will be merged into Core Data and will result in the full participation of all CLAC schools.
  • Carole and Richard are in New Zealand giving keynote presentations at EDUCAUSE Australasia.
  • AAHE will close at the end of the month. Change Magazinewill probably survive under another entity’s lead.
  • The summary of the management retreat is not in the Board book. Hawkins gave a verbal summary. There will be a follow-up staff retreat in June. At this time, the priorities seem to be working on thought leadership, tools, serving the next generation of leaders, and e-content initiatives.  Details on specific initiatives will be determined this spring and summer, which all derived from the Board planning retreat in January.
    • EDUCAUSE/NACUBO summits have been done in the past. We’re now looking at doing two summits per year, focusing on current hot topics, most likely thought leadership, tools, and e-content.
    • There is a push to provide “how to” information. There is also the possibility of a “Make a case for” series; i.e., how you make a case for a network upgrade.
    • A suggestion was made to have “Dream Blogs.” An example would be to have John Seeley Brown do a blog and be interactive with the membership. A decision was made to increase the blogging efforts, but they will not be billed as dream blogs. We will have high profile participants when possible.
    • We will continue to explore what it means to customize information to particular users.
    • There will be two internal efforts.  The first one is to explore alternatives or supplements to the primary rep model. The primary rep’s only job is to vote for the Board of Directors, but they are also our conduits to the campus. We are going to explore the possibility of a communicating rep to help get our message out. We will do this because the services of EDUCAUSE are under-utilized at many campuses. The second effort is to explore what to do with international efforts, without trying to become an international organization.
  • The last issue is to consider how we further our efforts in identity management, and Luker will be discussing this topic later today.

Highlights of Vice President Cynthia Golden’s Report

  • All EDUCAUSE Regional conferences are at or ahead of registration counts for last year. They all seem to be growing in popularity. There will be a new institute this summer for instructional technology. It will be a pilot this year and it is 60% full at this time.
  • The E2005 program committee will meet next week to finalize the content. Mely Tynan will chair E2007.
  • The CUMREC 50thanniversary and final conference will be held this May.
  • We have 153 people signed up to participate in the blog service. Fifty are now active. Other organizations are now starting to blog and podcast and they are pointing at EDUCAUSE as the model to follow.
  • Podcasting is moving rapidly. Selected presentations from various conferences will be done beginning this summer.

Highlights of Vice President Mark Luker’s Report

  • EDUCAUSE just concluded two successful conferences. The Cybersecurity Conference had 331 people in attendance, and the just-ended Policy Conference had 163 people in attendance.
  • The biggest policy issue this year will be telecommunications reform, and that might be the biggest issue for several years to come.
  • Mark distributed two handouts,Higher Education’s Perspective on Telecommunications Reform and Communications Daily, a publication by Warren Communications News.

Highlights of Vice President Diana Oblinger’s Report

  • Paul Hagner will be joining will be joining the EDUCAUSE staff as Associate Program Director, working with NLII/ELI on April 25. Paul brings a strong academic background and was one of the first NLII Fellows. Cyprien Lomas, another NLII Fellow, will be staying on half-time and working on emerging technology issues.
  • The roll out of the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) will be on May 16. The new logo and artwork was passed around for the Board to review. Insights is a new publication that will be coming out shortly and will cover the transition from NLII to ELI.
  • NLII is continuing to promote alternative channels of information distribution. At the recent NLII meeting, there were 280 attendees, but 800 people downloaded podcasts and 20% of those were international. Another alternative channel NLII is beginning to experiment with is vidcasting.
  • The E-Book was released in mid-February and 4,500 copies of the entire book were downloaded in the following six weeks.

Financial Update (Tab #2)

  • The Board book contains January financial statements. As of the end of February, we are $280,000 ahead of plan due in part to a HEBCA grant and to higher attendance at meetings.
  • EDUCAUSE Review advertising revenue is up significantly.
  • We budgeted for .edu revenue this year, based upon the assumption that we would be charging for the domain services. Since we have not yet begun to charge we do not have the $50,000 in revenue that was budgeted.

Investment Update (Tab #2)

The Board book indicates that the investment reports are as of February 28. That is an error; the reports are as of January 31. During the period from January 31 to March 31, the value of our portfolio increased by $31,000.

Review of 2004 audit and management letter (Handout)

EDUCAUSE received an unqualified audit. The management letter is as brief as it could be which is good, because the auditors didn’t find areas or issues that required comment. The Board suggested that as part of due-diligence, it might be time to change auditors, or at least to put the process out for bid.  Staff will follow up on that suggestion.

Consideration and approval of the 2005 Policy Program (Tab #3)

Rodney Petersen, Garret Sern, and Wendy Wigen, members of Mark’s staff, joined the meeting and were introduced to the Board.

Mark explained that material beginning on page 81 is meant to be an introduction to how the EDUCAUSE Federal Policy Program operates. Our policy staff works very actively with the policy staff of other associations, and those associations are listed on page 82.

There is another entire wing of the Policy Program and that is the Campus Policy area. Those efforts occur via the EDUCAUSE/Cornell Institute for Computer Policy and Law.

Page 83 describes the traditional role of the EDUCAUSE policy program, which is to focus on federal policy issues of greatest importance to the successful application of IT in higher education. The initiatives are Intelligence, Policy Formation, Education and Professional Development, and Representation. EDUCAUSE hosts the annual Policy Conference as part of its educational efforts. EDUCAUSE has gained credibility with governmental agencies and is now viewed as a trusted partner.  Most of what we do is classified as education, but we do occasionally do a small amount of lobbying. We have begun to keep track of lobbying expenses so that we can provide a factual answer if ever asked about lobbying expenses.

A section on shaping the future may be found on page 84. EDUCAUSE goes beyond the traditional operation of a policy office by both representing and leading our community with respect to policy issues. Render suggested that it might be to our advantage to increase the level of communication between the policy office and CIO’s, as that is often an area where CIO’s do not have adequate support.

EDUCAUSE has been unusually influential in shaping federal policy through a special type of initiative that organizes the community in a national “proof of concept” project. Much of the innovation we’ve accomplished has been at the invitation of the NSF. These innovations are accomplished through working groups and require collaborations with many different sectors. HEBCA is an example of such an innovation.

Page 86 summarizes recent policy activities.

  • Cyber security has been important for years and is beginning to branch out into areas dealing with physical security.
  • Privacy remains a concern and EDUCAUSE has led a coalition of partner associations in opposing a request to extend wiretapping requirements for the Internet in higher education.
  • Identity theft is big business and there are organized crime families involved on a wholesale level. The EDUCAUSE policy team has developed resource pages to assist colleges and universities with data security
  • Broadband networking is coming to the table as increasingly important and EDUCAUSE’s working group is conveying our community’s vision for broadband networking to a wide range of federal officials.

The chart of Federal Policy Issues that EDUCAUSE is monitoring, and what action we are taking, is shown on page 91. There are also samples of issue briefs on pp 97 and 99.

Motion: That the 2005 policy priorities, as discussed and amended, be approved
Motion made by: Perry Hansen
Seconded by: Kathy Christoph
Passed by unanimous vote

Update on REN-ISAC issues

The Board was brought up to date on issues of the nature of ISAC activities and the needs in this area, and a task force is working on the next set of priority investments in the area of security, including support of an ISAC.

Update and discussion of 20/20 meeting and management retreat

A two-day meeting was held; a part of which was an overview of the history of EDUCAUSE. There were no real surprises with respect to the views of the younger leaders. Engagement in the group is high. There were a lot of discussions on building communities, and not so much on technology. The profile of the group is in general younger and at lower levels; assistant directors, directors, and people on the move. Not all are from central IT, but most are. Many of the issues they’ve identified are the same as those the Board identified, but phrased differently.

One issue that arose at the management retreat, that hasn’t been previously discussed is that voting reps can sometimes be a roadblock to the dissemination of information on campus. Staff will be exploring the concept of introducing a communicating rep so that each campus can get full benefit from its membership.

Discussion of the future of HEBCA (Tab #4)

Brian introduced the topic of identity management.  If EDUCAUSE were to undertake this project, we would be spending about $250,000 per year, with the possibility of offsetting some of those expenses through the participation of involved universities. If bridge management became a mature project, we would outsource the operations and not attempt to run them internally. Even with outsourcing, additional staff would be required, perhaps 0.5 FTE. EDUCAUSE would collect and disseminate funds. If we assume this responsibility, our potential exposure is in the range of $200,000 to $250,000 per year.

Mark stated that the article beginning on page 111 explains what PKI and digital signatures are for, and what a bridge is for.  A bridge is intended to allow different institutions to communicate securely with each other in a secure fashion. We have a working bridge, a policy statement, and the staff to support it at Dartmouth. Luker feels that PKI is much more real than Hawkins’ conservative analysis. Certification of digital signatures adds another level of security. The federal government is adopting certificates very rapidly.

Page 105 shows a diagram from the International Collaborative Identity Management Forum that shows four PKI bridges, Federal, Certipath (aerospace), SAFE (pharmaceutical), and Higher Education.

The financial industry is also following this path as are grants. Page 106 has a chart that shows the HEBCA and FBCA bridges. The point is that bridges will be required at the top level. The Value will be realized when all sectors are fully connected.

We have already committed about $150,000 and may commit another $100,000. If the project moves ahead, contracts will have to come before the Board. Our members will be well served and this is a good investment for our members. Hitt stated that he would like to see EDUCAUSE continue the effort and would prefer that the initial thrust be into grants as opposed to financial aid.

Resolution: That the EDUCAUSE Board feels that it is appropriate to proceed with development of a business plan for the production operation of HEBCA, and that EDUCAUSE should invest $100,000-$200,000 to support this effort in the initial years, and that seed funding is an appropriate source of this investment (assuming annual review in the program plan and that revenues from future business be used to supplant these investments), and that the Board endorses continued negotiations with business partners for shared investment.
Proposed by: John Hitt
Seconded by: Robyn Render
Passed unanimously

New Business

Strawn announced that the NSF is in the process of initiating a NSF CIO group. It will follow the EDUCAUSE model of self-help and community practice.

There was no further new business.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

Next Board Meetings

  • Wednesday, August 10, 2005 Snowmass, Colorado, 12:15 – 6:30 p.m.
  • Monday, October 17, 2005 Orlando, Florida 1:00 – 5:00 p.m.