Whereas: Dr. Tom West of the CSU Chancellor's
Office pledged that there would be an open process within the CSU
to consider whether the CSU should join with GTE, Fujitsu,
Hughes, and Microsoft in a partnership (known as CETI); and
Whereas: Faculty and staff have had the
opportunity to review a business plan for CETI that was prepared
by GTE on behalf of the four proposed corporate partners which
reflects the kind of analysis that corporate management and
investors expect in making commitments of this magnitude and
duration; and
Whereas: This plan (CETI) represents the
initial negotiating position of the four potential corporate
partners; and
Whereas: The CSU administration states its
intent to involve faculty, staff, and lower levels of campus
administration for input before negotiating the CETI plan; and
Whereas: It is both prudent and essential
that the CSU prepare and widely disseminate a companion business
plan that addresses the partnership from the CSU's perspective to
put the CSU in a true negotiating position with the technology
partnership; and
Whereas: It appears that the corporate
sponsors have done their homework in examining the prospect from
their point of view; while the CSU itself has limited its focus
to broad, but vague, visions; therefore be it
Resolved: That the CSU should prepare a
companion business plan to the CETI plan, from the CSU
perspective which would include:
1. A clear statement of the mission of the CSU and how CETI will complement that mission.
2. A vision of the CSU in 2007 including some concrete scenarios of how faculty, students, and others will interact with the CSU in comparison to how we are operating in 1997.
3. A careful assessment of the technology-related environment from CSU's perspective rather than the partners.
4. A careful identification and evaluation of alternatives to CETI. Among the alternatives should be an arrangement where the initiative is fully owned and managed by the CSU and would acquire the competencies to be provided by GTE and others under a contract.
The plan should provide a comprehensive and honest assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative considered.
5. A ten-year proforma financial plan, but as finances are viewed from the perspective of the CSU. The plan should make a reasoned forecast of how CETI-sponsored instruction will result in replacement for existing on-campus instruction and existing non-CETI-procured extended education programs. The plan should project the degree of penetration of new markets from CSU-developed content and how this will affect the budgets. The plan should project how that content will be distributed according to (1) general education vs. Major, (2) different disciplines, (3) undergraduate vs. Graduate instruction, and (4) degree-oriented vs. certificate-based units. The plan should anticipate how the CETI arrangement will impact campus, school, and departments in terms of dollars, staffing, and number of people.
6. Plans for buildout, marketing, operations, staffing, and implementation - - from the perspective of CSU. The CSU plans should, at a minimum, cite how its version of these plans would differ from the CETI plan. It seems very critical that the plan provide a reasoned projection of the effect on CSU staffing, both in terms of instructors, technology support staff, and others, as well as departmental structure.
And be if further
Resolved: That we request in the strongest
terms possible that the CSU Academic Senate urge the Chancellor
and the Board of Trustees to prepare a business plan as outlined
in this resolution before entering into a contract with the
entity known as CETI.