Summary of PresidentsÕ Statements on CETI

The "Ideal Deal" and "Issues of Concern"

 October 23, 1997

In response to Chancellor MunitzÕ request, Presidents Rosser and Welty asked their fellow presidents to communicate to the leadership of the Systemwide Internal Partnership what would constitute the "ideal" deal with our TII partners, and what issues of concern to their campuses should be considered in negotiations. Twenty campuses responded to that letter, contributing over 300 comments addressing 82 sometimes closely related but separable points. Because respondents did not share a common understanding of the distinction between characteristics of the "ideal" deal and "issues of concern," they have been treated as dual expressions of the same issue for portions of this summary. An overview of comments showing both the "ideal" characteristics and the "issues of concern" is appended.

 Of the 82 issues, about one fourth (20) were raised by one campus only; 35 were mentioned by two to four campuses; and the remaining 27 points (a third of the total) appeared in the responses of five to fourteen campuses. Over half of the campuses expressed common views on two issues.

 The "Ideal" Deal

Based on issues mentioned by at least a third of the campuses, the "ideal" deal would have the characteristics listed below. The figures in parentheses indicate the number of campuses that commented about the topic in their response.

 An "ideal" partnership with the CETI industry partners would preserve to the campuses:

• revenue currently earned from continuing or extended education programs, auxiliary business operations, contracts, gifts and other sources (15);
• employment and career advancement opportunities for campus employees (11);
• current technology infrastructure assets and investments (9), particularly if the partnership is dissolved (8);
• some flexibility in the choice of technology systems and products (9);
• levels of service provided under current contracts and the option of continuing relationships with vendors who are not members of the partnership (8);
• academic freedom and faculty control over the curriculum and its delivery (7);
• intellectual property rights and other rights as provided in the MOU (7).

 Ideally, the partnership would provide to campuses, faculty and, to the system:

• opportunities to market educational products and services to new audiences throughout the state, the nation, and internationally (9);
• incentives for individual and campus participation in revenue generating activities (8);
• the buildout, operation and periodic refresh of the technology infrastructure on all campuses and off-campus sites (7);
• opportunities to form new partnerships with K-14 and other private sector companies (7);
• new professional development opportunities, especially for staff in information technology (6);
• current generation hardware and software for faculty and staff desktops and for general purpose computer laboratories (5);
• high quality support services to students, faculty and staff 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (5);
• flexibility in way the infrastructure buildout is implemented on each campus (5);
• flexibility in responding to changing technologies, educational needs and market conditions (5).

 The ideal partnership would enhance each partnerÕs ability to achieve the objectives outlined in the TII-SIP framework (8), while not requiring:

• campuses to redirect their own resources to finance the infrastructure buildout (7);
• the CSU to assume financial risk (5);
• the CSU to engage in legal actions (5).

 The ideal governing structure for the partnership would ensure that:

• mechanisms exist for input by campuses, faculty, students and staff (6);
• the CSU retains a controlling interest in the partnership (5).

 Finally, prior to the acceptance of the final agreement campuses should have an opportunity to study and respond to:

• the exact terms and conditions for each partner (6);
• detailed, campus-specific implementation plans (6).

 Issues of Concern to Campuses

Issues voiced clearly as concerns by more than a single campus are summarized below. The number of campuses that made reference to the issue is indicated in parentheses.

 CETI planning was questioned with respect to:

• the realism of projections about revenues and cost reductions (7);
• the adequacy of the time available for campus review and analysis (3);
• the reliability of CSU data used in projecting the costs of the infrastructure buildout (2).

 Ideological concerns were expressed about the partnership on the grounds of differences in:

• the core values of the academic and corporate cultures (5);
• the management structures of campuses and corporations (2);
• views about exclusivity of relations between the university and vendors (2);
• the willingness of all campuses to join the partnership (2).

 Practical concerns about the workability of what has been proposed in the draft business plan include:

• control of the marketing of CETI products and services (4);
• assurance that mission-based, educational uses of infrastructure will have priority over commercial uses (4);
• equitable access to CETI benefits for campuses whose past investments have brought them to (near) baseline level (2);
• incompatibility of baseline technology standards adopted by CETI with products currently used to support specific campus programs (2).