September 30, 1997

Memorandum

To: Dr. John D. Welty, President

Front: Benjamin F. Quillian & Vice President for Administration

Subject: The Ideal TII Agreement

The general principles which have been distributed to the University as those which are intended to guide the outcome of the agreement serve well to provide a general structure to an ideal deal. The following factors, received from members of the University community, go into making the deal appropriate and beneficial to California State University, Fresno.

California State University, Fresno employees should be retained as; such. Students and corporate employees should not replace University employees. To the extent possible, there should be minimal disruptions to the employees such as relocation, major changes in responsibilities and duties, and changes in the management structure. If such changes cannot be avoided, the contractual agreement should include clauses to minimize deleterious effects upon the employees and maximize positive outcomes.

To ensure the continued development of University employees, there should be provisions for training technical staff members and faculty members in a manner that will enable their continued professional growth.

There should be minimal added costs to the University. Given the exceedingly difficult task of estimating revenues and costs in the ever-changing environment of technology, careful attention must be given to the financial analysis to avoid overly optimistic revenue projections and understated cost projections.

The need for standards is understood. However, to the extent possible, the University should be able to maintain sufficient flexibility and latitude to address special needs and preferences beyond basic office automation hardware and software. Similarly, support of faculty software should be included at the baseline. The "baseline" should include adequate desktop equipment for our students, faculty and staff.

The University should have controlling interest in the CETI to ensure appropriate control over such issues as curriculum selection, certifications, general education courses, remedial education, degree-track programs in business, offerings of Extended Education, the Virtual University and the Centers of Excellence. The tenets of academic input and academic freedom must be preserved. I lie CSU should have veto authority over policy decisions undertaken by the CETI. The faculty, through the Academic Senate process should have purview over all educational content.

The need for a long-term agreement is understood. However, ten years in the rapidly changing world of technology seems unwise. A prevision for regular "re-openers" is essential to provide the parties an opportunity to adjust the relationship in light of experiences and changing conditions is preferable. The language of the exit clause should protect the value of the University's depreciated technology infrastructure assets and CSU's contribution via Level A technology infusions.

The agreement should carefully delineate appropriate performance specifications and required service levels as determined by the campus. When expected levels of performance and service are not met, there should be a mechanism in place to provide corrective action. Appropriate exit clauses should be established to ensure the University can end the relationship while protecting its interests.

All educational products/copyrights which may have been the temporary property of CETI should be returned to the CSU upon termination of the relationship.

Independent contracting or incentive agreements with individual faculty without reference to the Memorandum of Understanding between the CSU and CFA should not be permitted.

The CSU should be able to provide meaningful input and give final approval to CETI marketing plans to ensure an approach that is consistent with the philosophy and values of the academic community.

BFQ:pt