January 12, 1998

Memorandum

To: John D. Welty, President

From: Benjamin F. Quillian, Vice President for Administration

Subject: Update of University Input Regarding CETI Partnership

The following summarizes the positions, issues and concerns brought to the attention of the sub-group of the Information and Educational Technology Coordinating Committee (IETCC) by various members of the University community to date. I am deeply appreciative of the numerous faculty members and staff who have taken time to share with me their comments and concerns. Clearly, there is a very positive interest in the technology needs of the CSU generally and California State University, Fresno specifically.

This memorandum and the attachments will serve as the basis for the input Jim Morris and I will give at the System-wide Internal Partnership (SIP) meeting on January 15 and 16. Copies of this memorandum and the attachments will be shared with the SIP representatives. Based upon conversations I have had with Tom West, there will be additional opportunities for campus input prior to the signing of the CETI agreement. The issues raised herein are not being proffered as the University’s official response. Rather, the purpose is to bring to the fore the general issues being addressed and questioned.

The review of the revised financial projections has not yet been completed. Originally, the revenue projections were viewed as inflated. Hopefully, at the up-coming SIP meeting I will be able to get better understandings of the new assumptions that underlie the revisions of the financial data.

Members of the University community recognize that many of their basic concerns are being addressed, but most generally feel that the documents which are available to them remain fluid and fail to provide sufficient detail and specificity to permit full comprehension or garner unqualified support. Although numerous concerns and questions have been raised, the need for the infrastructure build-out is clearly recognized. The overarching concerns, however, relate to the speed of the process, intellectual property rights, control of curriculum and academic governance, disposition of staff, indirect and direct costs (financial and otherwise) to the University and technological flexibility and latitude.

• Members of the faculty generally recognize the need for and support the build-out of the California State University telecommunications infrastructure. However, given the magnitude, complexity and possible impact upon the principles of academic freedom, faculty members caution against proceeding too quickly to enter into the California Educational Technology Initiative (CETI). The June 1997 report of a subcommittee of the American Association of University Professors’ Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure has been identified as a document that addresses many of the focal concerns of our faculty members. The report is attached as Exhibit A. Essentially, the faculty want time to ensure that the CETI partnership does not inappropriately alter or dilute the basic principles of academic freedom and free inquiry within the academic community. There is concern that significant consequences may not be foreseen unless greater time is allowed for deliberation and consultation.

• It is not fully understood among members of our community how all of the CSU campuses will be benefited by the CETI without disadvantages accruing to those campuses that will be attended to in the later stages of the build-out process.

• Numerous individuals have posited that the technological directions charted by the CETI may be insufficiently flexible to accommodate needed innovations in the future. The "refresh" concept does not appear to permit a radical re-direction of technology initiatives, which is probably unforeseen at this time.

• Concerns linger among some individuals who do not believe a publicly supported university should be required to seek the assistance of corporate partners to provide state-of-the-art computing technology for teaching and learning. Such individuals encourage the administration to seek an alternative solution to the funding problem. If no viable alternative can be identified, then extreme care should be given to the implications of the CETI partnership to ensure proper governance.

• Raising the issue of "distance learning" and other revenue producing initiatives in the context of the CETI partnership is troublesome for some faculty; particularly in the absence of sufficient detail. It has been suggested that the CETI partnership would be less controversial if the necessary revenues were limited to leasing excess capacity of the infrastructure.

• Individuals have observed that the CETI initiative will require the development of new mechanisms for exchanging, transferring and sharing resources among the CSU campuses as a result of increased collaborative efforts among the faculty that will be enabled by the infrastructure. Such mechanisms have not yet been specified.

• Some faculty members have stated that the implications CETI may have upon the balance of upper and lower division courses and FTES have not been fully identified. Such implications require careful attention.

• There is complete agreement that strong faculty input will be needed in an on-going manner. Concerns have been expressed about the structure and size of the Commission on Technology Infrastructure and Partnerships (CTIP). Some have suggested the need for a working committee structure in the CTIP, with a smaller policy body to receive necessary input.

• It remains unclear to many individuals how the CETI will impact the University’s budget process. For example, questions have been raised about paying for services outside of the scope of CETI. How will "indirect" costs to participate in CETI be covered? It has been noted that major shifts in revenues can be very disruptive. How will such disruptions be minimized? There is some concern that financial commitments to CETI for hardware, software, and services may eliminate budgetary flexibility necessary to meet other needs at the campus level. Among other things, where will money come from to meet the specialized technology needs of the academic programs, given other University priorities and commitments?

• Several individuals have raised questions about the corporate partners. There is a need to clarify Microsoft’s role and the related environment that Microsoft will require. Concerns also persist among some about the quality and reliability of Fujitsu products. There are those who believe the benefits that will accrue to the corporate partners outweigh the benefits to the CSU. This latter point suggests bargaining for an increased equity share of the profits for the CSU. More generally, the corporate partners have not been "visible" to the University community, and there is a call for greater visibility of all corporate partners. This suggests the need for opportunities for the faculty and staff to interact directly with each of the partners. Such opportunities may increase the comfort level of our faculty and staff and their understanding of how each of the corporate partners will interact with the CSU.

• There are faculty and staff members who continue to question the legality of the CETI partnership. It has been suggested that the CSU solicit a legal opinion from the Attorney General to put this issue to rest before additional time and resources are directed to the implementation of the CETI partnership.

• The issue of exit clauses for the CETI agreement concerns numerous members of our community. At this point, the implications of terminating the agreement lack specificity. The following questions have been raised. How will the CSU find resources to maintain the new infrastructure if the corporate partners choose to exit? Will the CSU be able to afford moving away from the CETI and pursuing a different direction, if locked into the directions charted by the CETI?

• The ability of our faculty and staff to utilize the new infrastructure has been questioned. Current levels of expenditures for desktops have not begun to approach what will be needed. It is feared that the new infrastructure will be inaccessible to most faculty. This suggests the need to negotiate desktops into the baseline provided by CETI, removing it from being purely a revenue issue.

• Although a proposal has been forwarded by the Central Valley Internet Provider (CVIP) to the CSU leadership, the possible role of the CVIP under the CETI partnership remains unclear. CVIP leadership seeks clarification of how internet services will be provided at this university and throughout the CSU. There is concern that the cost effective benefits CVIP has been able to provide our faculty, staff and community may be lost under the CETI plan.

• Two questions have been raised about the Help Desk services. First, will Help Desk services be available to University employees and students who use personally purchased computers (i.e., not purchased through CETI) to perform University work? There is strong agreement among the faculty and staff that these services should be available to faculty, staff, and students for all on- and off-campus computing problems. Second, what Help Desk services will be provided where? The clear message from members of the University community is that first level contact with the Help Desk should be at the campus level with triage determined there, routing CETI related problems to the state Help Desk as needed.

In addition to the above stated issues, I have received written input from various on-campus individuals and constituency bodies. That input is attached in its entirety as Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G and H. If you have any questions or if discussion is needed, just let me know.

BFQ:pt

Attachments (not on email)
A. Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications, AAUP Report (June 1997)
B. December 11th Issues with CETI Plan, Memorandum from John Cagle to John Welty
C. Additional CETI Issues (Raised at IETCC Meeting on December 11, 1997)
D. CETI Proposal Input, email from John Briar to Jim Morris & Rick Tellier (January 9, 1998)
E. Response to CETI Proposals, memorandum from Robert R. Brown Jr. to Spencer Blank (January 9, 1998)
F. Comments and Concerns about 12/5/97 CETI Proposal from CSU Fresno Technicians
G. IETCC December 11-12 Notes; January 23 Meeting Reminder, email from Ken Simms to IETCC
H. CETI Issues, email from Karl Longley to Benjamin Quillian (January 2, 1998)

c: Cabinet
IETCC