EDUCATION COUNCIL
NEBRASKA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION

Friday, November 16, 2007, 9:00 am-12:00 pm CT

Creighton University, Morrison Soccer Stadium-2nd Floor
19th & California Streets, Omaha, Nebraska

MINUTES

 

VOTING MEMBERS/ALTERNATES PRESENT:

Mr. Arnold Bateman, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Ms. Clark Chandler, Nebraska Wesleyan University

Dr. Michael Chipps, Mid-Plains Community College

Mr. Ron Cone, Educational Service Unit 10

Dr. Terry Haack, Bennington Public Schools

Dr. Dan Moser, Alt. for Yvette Holly, University of Nebraska Medical Center
Mr. Jeff Johnson, Centennial Public Schools

Ms. Becky Kohrs, Alt. for Stan Carpenter, State College Board

Mr. Chuck Lenosky, Creighton University
Mr. Craig Pease, Ashland-Greenwood Public Schools

Mr. Art Tanderup, Tekamah-Herman Community Schools

 

LIAISON/ALTERNATE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Kathleen Fimple, Alt. for Marshall Hill, Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education

Mr. Terry Dugas, Alt. for Mike Winkle, NET

Mr. Mike Kozak, Department of Education

Dr. David Wagaman, Alt. for Brenda Decker


MEMBERS/LIAISONS ABSENT:  Dr. Eileen Ely, Western Nebraska Community College; Mr. Dennis Linster, Wayne State College; Linda Richards, Ralston Public School Board; and Mr. Bob Uhing, Educational Service Unit 1.

 

CALL TO ORDER, ELECTRONIC POSTING, LOCATION OF OPEN MEETING LAW DOCUMENTS, ROLL CALL, INTRODUCTIONS

 

Dr. Haack called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.  There were 11 voting members present at the time of roll call.  A quorum existed to conduct official business. It was stated that the meeting notice was posted to the NITC and Public Meeting Calendars Web sites on October 1, 2007 and the meeting agenda was posted to the NITC Web site November 13, 2007. A copy of the Open Meetings Law was displayed at the entrance of the meeting room.

 

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR THE NOVEMBER 16, 2007 MEETING

 

Mr. Bateman moved approval of the November 16, 2008 meeting agenda.  Mr. Lenosky seconded.  Roll call vote:  Bateman-Yes, Carpenter-Yes, Chandler-Yes, Chipps-Yes, Cone-Yes, Haack-Yes, Moser-Yes, Johnson-Yes, Kohrs-Yes, Lenosky-Yes, Pease-Yes, and Tanderup-Yes.  Results:  Yes-11, No-0.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 MEETING

 

Mr. Tanderup moved to approve the September 28, 2007 minutes as presented.  Mr. Johnson seconded.  Roll call vote: Tanderup-Yes, Pease-Yes, Lenosky-Yes, Kohrs-Yes, Johnson-Yes,  Moser-Yes, Haack-Yes, Cone-Yes, Chipps-Yes, Chandler-Yes, Carpenter-Yes, and Bateman-Yes.  Results:  Yes-11, No-0.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

 

There was no public comment.

 

MEMBERSHIP - CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF STEPHEN HAMERSKY

 

Mr. Hamersky was present and provided a brief background and stated his interest in the NITC Education Council.  He stated that he is very interested in being the connection between the council and non-public schools.

 

Mr. Chandler moved to recommend Stephen Hamersky to the NITC as the non-public school sector member.  Mr. Bateman seconded.  Roll call vote:  Cone-Yes, Haack-Yes, Moser-Yes, Johnson-Yes, Kohrs-Yes, Lenosky-Yes, Pease-Yes, Tanderup-Yes, Bateman-Yes, Carpenter-Yes, Chandler-Yes, and Chipps-Yes.  Results:  Yes-11, No-0.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

PRESENTATIONS: I.T. PROJECT PROPOSALS, 2007-09 DEFICIT REQUESTS

 

Mr. Rolfes provide a brief background.  These projects were before the council one year ago as part of the biennial budget process.  Both received a Tier I rating meaning a high priority but with the specification that the two entities work collaboratively.  These were forwarded on to the legislature for consideration for funding but they were not funded.  They are again before the council as deficit requests.  The Council’s charge is to discuss and make recommendation for funding to the NITC, who then forwards projects on to the Governor and the Legislature.

 

State College System Student Information Administrative System (2006 Summary Document) (2007 Summary Document )

 

Ms. Becky Kohrs presented information about the State College System budget request. She stated that the State College Systems released an RFP.  Three vendors have provided presentations:  Oracle, Datatel and Sunguard (Banner).  No selection will be made until funding has been secured.  This information was also indicated in the RFP.  Council members were given an opportunity to ask questions.

 

Would the system create a one-point entry for students to apply to any higher education institution in Nebraska?  It is not undetermined at this time.

Will both the State College System and the University of Nebraska choose the same student information system?  No not necessary.  The State College System needs an enterprise system for student information, housing, financial aide, financial management and human resources.  The University of Nebraska needs the student information system only.

Will there be a strong business case for two separate systems rather than one collaborative?  There was no definite answer.  Mr. Bateman stated that the University wants to avoid purchasing a system that will require a lot of enhancements and would be a seamless process between the University’s campuses for distance education.

Will it be a centralized system?  This has not been discussed yet.

How does this overlap and interface with the NIS financial system?  This is currently under review.  It could be similar to what the University is doing.  Currently, the State College System is doing double data entry into their financial system and then into NIS. 

 

University Of Nebraska Student Information System (2006 Summary Document) (2007 Summary Document )

 

Jim Zemke, University of Nebraska, provided a PowerPoint presentation.  Lack of technical support for the system will end in December 2011.  Financial aid and federal regulations are a concern.  SIS+ system users established a consortium.  It is estimated that a new system will take 2-3 years to implement.  The University has hired Collegiate Project Services to provide consultation and study. In addition, the University of Nebraska has established a steering committee consisting of members from the primary functional areas.  The four university campuses would be able to retain same autonomy but the software would act as one system. Council members were given an opportunity to ask questions:

 

Is SAP system-wide?  Yes

Will the new product interface with SAP?  Yes.

Will the dash board concept be included or will this be an additional cost?  Yes, this will be requested in the RFP.

What is included in the Budget item “Other” which is approximately 1/3 of the budget request?  The University has not had a chance to respond to the reviewers’ comments.

What would it take to make collaboration happen between the State College System and the University of Nebraska to work together as one project?  There was no definite response.

What degree of collaboration has happened to assure cost efficiency?  Informal discussions have occurred but no formal decisions have been made. Council members commented that an analysis of efficiency would be beneficial.

Independent colleges were asked if they would buy into the new student information system?  Mr. Chandler commented that the independent colleges do not have the funding to make a change right now but perhaps down the road there may be a possibility. The system they currently use works for their needs.

If the legislature does not fund these projects, what will the State College System and the University of Nebraska do?  That is not known as the discontinuation date of the software will not be delayed.

The University is asking $21 million for 2008 but the Board of Regents approved $16, where will the difference come from?  Mr. Zemke explained that the revised regents’ approval may reflect some internal funding that will be used to support the project.

 

Dr. Chipps stated that although collaboration and best practices may be different between the State College System and the University of Nebraska but that it would be beneficial for them to work together for the end user.

 

REVIEW AND PRIORITIZATION OF DEFICIT I.T. PROJECTS

 

MOTION 1: On the consideration of prioritization of deficit budget Information Technology Project Proposals, 50-01 State College System Student Information Administrative System, and 51-01 University of Nebraska Student Information System; Craig Pease moved, and Chuck Lenosky seconded, to recommend both projects as Tier 1 Priority (Mission critical for the agency) because of discontinuation of support of the existing student information systems.

 

Roll call vote: Bateman-Yes; Kohrs (for Carpenter)-Yes; Chandler-Yes; Chipps-Yes; Moser-Yes; Lenosky-Yes; Cone-Yes; Haack-Yes; Johnson-Yes; Pease-Yes; Tanderup-Yes. Results:  11-Yes, 0-No. Motion passed unanimously.

 

MOTION 2: On the consideration of appended comments to the 50-01 and 51-01 Project Summary Documents, Craig Pease moved, and Clark Chandler seconded, to add the following bulleted remarks to each project:

 

Project 50-01 State College System Student Information Administrative System

·         To commend the State College System staff on their efforts to operate as an integrated system of three colleges.

·         To the extent possible, both the State College System and the University of Nebraska must synchronize their RFP processes and co-evaluate vendors.

·         To require an analysis of cost-savings and an analysis of ‘effect on students’ for two pathways:

o        Centralization and cooperative hosting of Projects 50-01 and 51-01

o        Adoption of a single vendor for Projects 50-01 and 51-01

·         To require a unified look at adopting the same vendor by both the State College System and the University of Nebraska; and if not the same result, to provide a justification for divergence.

 

Project 51-01 University of Nebraska Student Information System

·         To commend the University of Nebraska staff on their efforts to operate as an integrated system of four campuses.

·         To require the University of Nebraska to more clearly delineate “Other” as part of the budget ($8.246million).

·         To the extent possible, both the State College System and the University of Nebraska must synchronize their RFP processes and co-evaluate vendors.

·         To require an analysis of cost-savings and an analysis of ‘effect on students’ for two pathways:

o        Centralization and cooperative hosting of Projects 50-01 and 51-01

o        Adoption of a single vendor for Projects 50-01 and 51-01

·         To require a unified look at adopting the same vendor by both the State College System and the University of Nebraska; and if not the same result, to provide a justification for divergence.

 

Roll call vote: Bateman-Yes; Kohrs (for Carpenter)-Yes; Chandler-Yes; Chipps-Yes; Moser-Yes; Lenosky-Yes; Cone-Yes; Haack-Yes; Johnson-Yes; Pease-Yes; Tanderup-Yes. Results:  11-Yes, 0-No. Motion passed unanimously.

 

Mr. Haack left the meeting at 10:55am.  Dr. Chipps presided over the remainder of the meeting.

 

LB 1208 UPDATE

 

Mr. Rolfes provided a brief update (click on link for more detailed information).  Rick Golden, University of Nebraska, is heading up the review committee for the RFP.

 

DISCUSSION: 2008 NITC STRATEGIC INITIATIVES AND ACTION PLANS

 

The NITC will be reviewing and approving the Strategic Initiatives for Statewide Technology Plan at the November 27th meeting.  All the advisory councils will need to develop action items to achieve the initiatives.  The Education Council’s focus deals primarily on Network Nebraska and the Digital Education initiatives.

 

By group consensus, the Education Council endorsed the Network Nebraska and Distance Education initiatives.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Mr. Cone stated that he visited Mid-Plains to do an interoperability test with other sites.  Point to point connections usually had good interoperability.  There are some audio and video issues with some multiple connections between unlike pieces of equipment.  Multi-point Conferencing Units (MCUs) became a viable option for interconnecting several different pieces of equipment. 

 

AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE 1/18/08 MEETING/CONSIDER LOCATION FOR THE 1/18/08 MEETING and ADJOURNMENT

 

Mr. Rolfes proposed meeting on the 1st Thursday of the month rotation for 2008 rather than on a Friday.  January 3rd would be the first meeting.  Mr. Rolfes will poll members regarding their availability.

 

Members requested continued LB 1208 updates for future meetings.

 

Mr. Chipps thanked Chuck Lenosky and Creighton University for hosting the meeting.

 

With no further business, co-chair adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m.

 

 

Meeting minutes were taken by Lori Lopez Urdiales and reviewed by Tom Rolfes of the Office of the CIO/NITC.