Get ready for network funding model changes
For the past year or so I’ve been sitting on the advisory committee which is providing input for a project to totally change in how the campus network is funded. Our current node-based network funding model has a number of major problems: the two most significant of those are that the charges don’t map well onto actual network costs (among other issues, wireless service isn’t included in the model at all), and that the model was never truly funded. Originally, the model had the campus contributing permanent money to fund a “node bank,” which essentially grandfathered in all existing network connections as of July 1, 2000. The campus never contributed that money; the chancellor has been covering some of the expense with temporary funding (which he wants to stop doing), and even so, the network has been underfunded.
Before you start throwing things–and when you read the rest of this post, you will likely want to throw things–please know that the advisory committee does not have any authority to change the basic parameters of the project, which are that the model should allow for direct charges to grants, be more or less equally charged to all departments, and be implemented by July 1, 2009.
We looked at what other similar institutions are doing, and the strong consensus is that higher ed institutions are moving to headcount, FTE, or FSE (full service equivalent, with a multiplier for non-communication workers and/or students) models. A major advantage of an FTE-based model is that it is technology-neutral. Apple introduced their first AirPort wireless access point, which was the first major success of Wi-Fi networking, just three weeks after the campus decided on a node-based model for network funding. We cannot predict what new network technologies will arrive in the next five years–but we can surely predict that there will be some, and that implementing them will have cost implications. Our funding model needs to be flexible as technology changes.
The FTE model also is neutral with respect to user behavior. Our current node-based model encourages undesirable user behavior, such as using AirBears instead of wired connections to avoid network charges, or connecting network switches or hubs to a single wall connection, and running network cables down hallways or poking holes in walls. (If you can imagine it, we’ve seen it done.) When charges are FTE-based, networks can be built based on what works best, technologically, as opposed to what incurs the least cost based on a faulty model.
So, in theory I’m in favor of moving to an FTE-based funding model, and it seems clear that the campus is committed to do so at this point. However, the devil is in the details, and today we were told there are two major details which still need to be worked out: defining “FTE”, and deciding on subsidy (or “funding allocation” as the budget office would have us term it.)
The advisory committee had come to a decision on the FTE definition which would include all faculty and staff (including “non-knowledge-worker” staff such as gardeners), all GSI and GSR positions, and a partial cost for students living in the dorms. Undergraduates, including undergraduate student workers, would not be included. When the plan was brought to the cabinet, there was push-back on the non-knowledge-worker issue (Facilities wants a multiplier for them), and on the student issue (the Recharge Committee wants them all included, ostensibly to comply with federal regulations). There are ongoing discussions on exactly how the FTE/FSE model would shake out, and what the multipliers would be for different types of users. Those discussions should be concluded reasonably quickly.
The bigger issue is subsidy. There is a sizable amount of subsidy in the network right now, but most of it has been allocated on a yearly basis from temporary emergency funds. The advisory committee is requesting $4 million in permanent funds be allocated to offset the impact of the network charges; in the current budget climate, it is not clear what will come of that request. Without any funding allocation, the network charges will come out to something in the neighborhood of $45 per FTE per month ($540 per year).
Most L&S departments are currently paying very low, or zero per-month network fees. Because all existing connections from July 1, 2000 were grandfathered in, and most network growth since that time has been wireless, departments have been able to manage their node banks to avoid charges. Under the FTE-based model, these departments would begin to have to pay. A department with 10 staff, 50 faculty, and 40 GSI/GSR/student FTE could go from paying zero now, to paying $54,000/year for network charges. Even a small department with 5 staff, 10 faculty, and 5 GSI/GSI/students could be hit with over $10,000 in ongoing yearly charges. And as noted above, the campus plans to roll this out as of July 1 this year. Given the above costs, it seems impossible that the roll out could successfully occur; subsidy will be required to plausibly implement this plan for the coming fiscal year. (Or really, for any other fiscal year).
As of today, we are not close to agreement on the size of the funding allocation, or how it should be allocated. One plan has the $4 million in requested permanent funding going to subsidize all academic titles (faculty/GSI/GSR); in the above scenarios, that would reduce the budget impact for those two departments to something like $6,000 and $3,000/year, respectively (staff FTE plus student worker FTE). So even if $4 million in funding is allocated, there will still be a significant impact to many departmental budgets–and there are several on the committee who doubt that $4 million in funding allocation is possible. There is some talk of a student fee, but serious doubts about whether the students would vote for it in referendum.
The financial people are going back to run another set of numbers. Soon, Shel Waggener will talk to the Council of Deans and the Academic Senate about implementing this plan. I expect there will be significant resistance from both bodies, and I don’t have a good sense of what the final result will be. I can’t imagine how departments could take this kind of budget hit, in the midst of all the other budget cutting they are having to do.
I will do what I can to keep people informed.
