2025-2026 MELA Minutes

MELAMinutes 2025-2026 Mississippi Virtual Community College

Mississippi eLearning Association Minutes Thursday, September 18 at 9:00 a.m. Virtual Meeting Link https://itsmsgov.zoom.us/j/81760160525?pwd=nVwRwvme8WRucqfgT6xXx0j2iXm05O.1 College/Association Representative(s) Coahoma Community College Ms. Monica Johnson Copiah-Lincoln Community College Ms. Renae Breakfield, Ms. Anna Davis East Central Community College Mr. Matt Blackwell East Mississippi Community College Ms. Coranette “Chris" Square Hinds Community College Mr. Kelton Kemp, Ms. Jasmine Shepherd: Holmes Community College Ms. Shalon Farris, Ms. Heather Guest Itawamba Community College Ms. Melanie Francis, Ms. Denise Gillespie, Ms. Tequila Sunrise Jones College Ms. Amber Yarnell

Meridian Community College

Ms. Holley Purvis; Ms. Erin Richardson

Mississippi Delta Community College

Ms. Sarah Buchanan

Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College Ms. Buffy Matthews, Mr. Van Morse, Ms. Michelle Pickering, Northeast Mississippi Community College Ms. Kim Harris, Ms. Sabine Zabarovska Northwest Mississippi Community College Ms. Carla Ms. Malone, Ms. Angel Nickens; Mr. Aaron Payne, Ms. Kim Steinman

Pearl River Community College

Ms. Ali Mascagni, Ms. Michele Mitchell

Southwest Mississippi Community College Mr. Matt Calhoun MS Community College Board

Ms. Megan Akins, Dr. Krista LeBrun, Dr. Christa Wilhite

Office

College/Association

Name

President

Ms. Kelly Robinson Ms. Sarah Buchanan

MDCC

President Elect

JJC

Secretary

Ms. Coranette “Chris” Square

EMCC

1. Preliminaries A. Call to Order: Sarah Buchanan (JJC) B. Roll Call: Coranette “Chris” Square (EMCC) C. Approval of July 2025 Minutes 1. Motion to approve : Michelle Mitchell (PRCC) 2. Second to approve : Buffy Matthews (MGCCC) 3. Approved by all 15 community colleges D. Approval of September 2025 Agenda 1. Motion to approve: Buffy Matthews (MGCCC) 2. Second to approve: Kim Harris (NEMCC) 3. Approved by all 15 community colleges E. MCCB Reports 1. Dr. Krista LeBrun (MCCB)

a. SmarterServices: Dr. Lebrun informed the group that the SmarterServices contract is set to expire on March 31, 2026 . She expressed her concerns regarding the delay in receiving a quote, noting that she has requested it several times but has yet to receive a response. Dr. Lebrun has communicated to Sean at SmarterServices that the deadline is approaching, and if the MELA group decides to renew the contract, it must be finalized by April 1, 2026 . Dr. Lebrun will continue to advocate for the quote, aiming to take action in October 2025 . She reminded the group that the quote must be submitted to ITS at least 120 days before the service starts. Once the quote is received, Dr. Lebrun will share it with the MELA group to facilitate a decision by October. If the

group decides to move forward, the matter will also be presented to the Presidents in October for approval. b. Brainfuse Hours: Dr. Lebrun provided an update on the Brainfuse contract, noting that she has been closely monitoring its progress. She reminded the group that the contract was initially established through an RFP, awarded based on previous usage. At the start of the contract, it was estimated that annual usage would range between 9,000 and 11,000 hours, with a total allocation of $834,923.46 for Year 1, beginning in the fiscal year 2024. In the first year, 12,427 hours were used, totaling nearly $286,000, which exceeded the anticipated cost by approximately $43,000. During the second year, which was the first full year of service, Brainfuse usage increased to over 14,000 hours, resulting in a cost of approximately $323,000. For the current fiscal year (FY 2026), the contract began with 9,840 hours remaining, valued at $226,000. In July and August, a total of $16,000 was spent, though these months typically have the lowest usage. Historically, December, January, and May also see lower usage, while September, October, November, and February are high-usage months, with costs ranging between $45,000 and $60,000 per month in recent years. Dr. Lebrun expressed concern about whether the remaining hours will sustain the group through FY 2026, as this is the final year of the current contract. Dr. Lebrun recently met with ITS to discuss next steps. The plan will involve two parts:  Request a revision to the existing contract to add additional hours for FY 2026.  As the contract period nears its end, request a quote for a three year renewal, should the group decide to continue the service. Dr. Lebrun shared that she received a quote from Richard at Brainfuse. The cost remains $23 per hour, and adding 6,000 additional hours would bring the total to 15,000 hours for the final year, at an extra cost of $138,000. This would push the total contract value to the $1 million mark. To extend the contract, a business case will need to be prepared for ITS approval. This will involve justifying the $1 million allocation by explaining the value of the service, its utilization, and its importance. Dr. Lebrun noted that preparing this business case would require a mini-thesis.

As of the end of August, $210,000 remains available under the current contract. Dr. Lebrun’s goal is to have the business case submitted to ITS and begin the process in October, especially as ITS has recently updated their procurement procedures. c. CidiLabs – TidyUP : Dr. LeBrun shared an update on efforts to finalize the TidyUp and UDOIT (accessibility) contracts. She mentioned that she had aimed to complete everything by August 1st, but this was delayed. After August 1st, she discovered that a document she had submitted to ITS in May had been rejected, requiring additional documentation and revisions. The TidyUp contract is set to expire at the end of November. Dr. LeBrun explained that she is working on securing a replacement contract by piggybacking off an RFP from Iowa for UDOIT, another accessibility software. When the draft contract was finally approved, an issue arose with CitiLabs, the vendor. The company initially stated that they would refund colleges that had already paid for TidyUp, but later they did not honor this commitment. After negotiations between CidiLabs and ITS, the vendor agreed to issue prorated refunds to the institutions that had already made payments. The goal was to have the new contract in place by mid-September, but CidiLabs does not permit mid-month contract start dates. As a result, the earliest possible start date for the contract is now October 1st. Dr. LeBrun is currently awaiting the latest draft of the contract for her review and approval. The three colleges that have already paid for TidyUp will receive refunds based on the new start date of October 1st. Dr. LeBrun estimated the total cost of the contract to be $29,000. This amount will cover services for October, November, December, and the remaining portion of the quarter, after which the contract will transition to the standard annual cost of $26,000. Dr. Whilite will assist institutions with activating and utilizing the new services once the contract is finalized. d. Turnitin FY27 and FY28 MRA: Dr. LeBrun provided an update on the Turnitin contract. Currently, the institution is under a one-year contract that remains in effect until June 30, 2026. Initially, the intent was to secure a three-year contract, but Turnitin required the signing of a Master Registration Agreement (MRA), which is essentially an extensive contract. Due to delays in reviewing and resolving issues with the MRA,

the institution moved forward with a one-year contract, with the understanding that it would serve as a continuation for the remaining two years once the legal review of the MRA was completed. Dr. LeBrun highlighted that the negotiation process with Turnitin has been challenging, involving multiple phone calls with ITS, the ITS legal team, MCCB’s lawyers, and Turnitin. She expressed transparency with the group about her significant concerns regarding the terms of the MRA, alongside similar concerns raised by ITS. This week, ITS received a draft of the MRA and marked it up extensively due to issues, particularly regarding data requests and the sharing of information that Turnitin is requiring. These concerns were escalated to Jonathan, MCCB’s lawyer from the Attorney General’s office, for review. Dr. LeBrun ensured that all her concerns were communicated to him. Additionally, she consulted with ITS for their recommendations, as MCCB would bear the liability associated with the contract. Dr. LeBrun noted that the institution has been using Turnitin since 2009, but the current situation is unprecedented. Turnitin has been adamant about having their MRA signed and has refused to sign ITS’s standard contract. This lack of flexibility from Turnitin has made negotiations particularly difficult. At this time, Dr. LeBrun is concerned about whether an agreement on the terms of the contract will be possible, given the significant issues and liabilities involved. Under contract with Turnitin until June 2026. Dr. Wilhite shared her feedback on the Turnitin contract, emphasizing that the language is very strong and raises significant concerns. One of the most troubling aspects is that Turnitin is requiring the institution to agree to all terms in the current contract while allowing themselves to make updates at any time. The institution would be responsible for tracking any changes to their usage rules and ensuring compliance. Failure to comply could result in Turnitin pursuing action against the institution.  Another problematic clause in the contract prohibits the use of Turnitin's product for comparison or evaluation of similar products or partnerships with competitors. This restriction poses challenges from a state agency perspective, especially if the institution decides to issue an RFP or pilot an alternative product in the future.  Dr. Wilhite also noted that Turnitin is currently compliant with 2.0 standards, not 2.1, which is another area of concern. Additionally, there is no contract in place yet for fiscal year 2027-2028. The current draft of the contract is with the Attorney General’s office for review, and MCCB is awaiting their opinion to determine whether the liability associated with Turnitin’s terms is acceptable.

 Dr. LeBrun informed the group that once she receives feedback from the attorney, Jonathan, she will share the information. She stated that it may be time for the group to decide whether to continue the partnership with Turnitin. However, she highlighted that September or mid-September is a critical time to make this decision, as the RFP process is lengthy. She cannot guarantee that a replacement product would be in place by July 1st if the group decides to pursue an alternative.  Dr. LeBrun is also waiting to hear from Renee Marie at ITS, who has more expertise in the RFP process, to explore potential options. Additionally, Turnitin is now requiring an order form to be signed every year, which has not been part of the process in the past.  Dr. LeBrun will send the group a marked-up version of the contract for review but reminded everyone that the document is subject to confidentiality.  Dr. LeBrun highly encourages a support group looking at other options just in the event an RFP is needed. Also need to be looked at from a quantitative viewpoint. 2. Dr. Christa Wilhite (MCCB) a. Turnitin Usage Overview: Dr. Wilhite shared that the FY25 Turnitin Tool Usage by Classes at Mississippi Community Colleges report can be downloaded from the MELA course. This report provides a system-wide overview of the Turnitin LTI and the Canvas Plagiarism Framework, both of which are active at most institutions. Dr. Wilhite explained the primary differences between the two tools:  Turnitin LTI : o Provides a similarity report .

o Includes a separate grading dashboard. o Offers customized Turnitin rubrics . o Allows faculty to use pre-authored Quick Marks , which can be dragged and dropped into a document to provide feedback. o Includes PeerMark , Turnitin’s peer review platform. o Features Originality , which addresses AI-related components. o Also provides a similarity report . o Includes the AI portion of the similarity report, but it is Canvas-based . o Allows local Canvas administrators to access interactions within the gradebook. o Uses Canvas rubrics with institution-level outcomes embedded directly into the rubrics.

 Canvas Plagiarism Framework :

Dr. Wilhite noted that there is significant faculty usage with both tools, particularly with the LTI . Additionally, Dr. Wilhite provided a quick overview of Turnitin usage by classes at MCCB and mentioned that she has also been in communication with other vendors to explore potential alternatives. b. DEN (Digital Educators Network) Updates : Dr. Wilhite shared that they are in the process of updating Canvas credentials . Once various badges are implemented, she plans to launch the webinar course for this year. The course will include prerecorded sessions , such as the Accessible Spotlight. Key updates include:  Each webinar course will feature a badge upon completion.  For the MSVCC Tech Tool Course , each module will have its own badge, and there will also be a badge for completing the entire course.  Digital Teaching and Learning will have its own badge as well.  When Part Two launches in the spring , it will include its own badge. Dr. Wilhite expressed her hope to have everything in place soon. The LTI is already integrated, and she is aiming to start the webinars in October for faculty training c. New ReadyGo : Dr. Wilhite shared that the new ReadyGo is now available to all institutions. Following Jim’s presentation and discussions with some institutions already using it, it was revealed that two institutions have transitioned to the new ReadyGo. These institutions contacted Cidi Labs directly to initiate a trial run of the software, as it can operate in tandem with the old ReadyGo . Dr. Wilhite explained that after learning from these institutions and addressing a roadblock at the state level, her recommendation is for institutions interested in using the new ReadyGo to contact Cidi Labs directly and request a trial. Institutions should be able to access the new version without any delays or changes to the existing contract. For future renewals, Dr. Wilhite recommended ensuring that the contract wording covers both versions of ReadyGo, as there are no additional charges associated with the new ReadyGo. d. Accessibility Score: Dr. Wilhite shared a website with the group regarding Accessibility Scores : Mississippi WHPC Accessibility Policies.

This website serves as an example of an accessibility statement from one of Mississippi’s state entities. The website provides:  An example of an accessibility policy .  Information on the compliance score their website has received.  Updates on their ongoing efforts to improve accessibility. Dr. Wilhite highlighted this as a valuable resource for institutions to reference when developing their own accessibility scoring and compliance efforts. It serves as a great example of how to approach accessibility policies and continuous improvement. e. Quality Letters Reminders – (Discussion for Submission Coming Soon): Dr. Wilhite reminded the group that Quality Letters are typically due by the end of October . She noted that the discussion board for submissions will be set up soon, and the deadline for submitting Quality Letters is October 31st .

F. MSVCC Committee Reports 1. Admin

a. The MELA Officers List 2023 was shown to the group. Mentioned that in the Policies and Procedure manual please view page 60 and look at the table regarding the rotation. It was mentioned that every college will serve eventually, starting with Secretary, President-Elect, and President. On page 27 in the Policies and Procedures manual it list the responsibilities for each of the officers. The admin committee can also answer any questions if needed.

2. Support

b. Mentioned that the Support committee will meet in the next couple of weeks. Dr. Wilihite mentioned that she will send the poll out to the group.

3. Quality It was mentioned that the committee has met several times to discuss goals, during which a few additional goals were proposed. A survey was conducted, and the results revealed that, despite the wide range of tools available to colleges, many institutions are using a variety of different tools . To further review these tools, the committee discussed whether a dedicated meeting or a standalone session would be preferred for this purpose. An overview of the survey results was also provided during the discussion.

G. Action Items H. Open Forum a. Discussion on Proctored Exam Courses Policies: Angel Nickens (NWCC) raised concerns about the requirement for proctored final exams in certain courses at her institution. She explained that many face-to-face courses rely heavily on multiple projects rather than proctored exams, as these projects often carry the most weight in the course grade. Angel shared the following points:  Some instructors feel that creating low-weighted proctored exams (e.g., quizzes worth only 5%) is a waste of time , especially since students may need to travel long distances (up to two hours) to take a brief 15-minute test.  In courses like entrepreneurship , students are required to develop a business plan and present it to a bank over Zoom, which provides sufficient verification of their identity and work.  Angel asked whether the MSVCC policy could evolve to allow more flexibility, particularly in cases like these, where proctored exams might not be necessary. She noted that although the current policy states that courses offered through MSVCC must include at least one proctored exam, the wording is not entirely clear. Buffy Matthews responded with the following observations:  While she believes moving in the direction Angel suggested could work , strict guidelines would need to be established to ensure compliance with identity verification requirements.  The purpose of proctored exams is to confirm the student's identity by requiring them to show official identification .  Buffy emphasized the need to clearly define requirements and limitations , such as whether this approach could apply to math courses or specific disciplines.  Before implementing any changes, detailed policies and guidelines would need to be developed and included in the Policies and Procedures Manual . b. Complaint Process in College Catalogs: Angel Nickens mentioned that during the August meeting (approved in July), it was noted that the student complaint process needs to be included in each institution's college catalog . Angel inquired about how other institutions are addressing this requirement in their catalogs.

Buffy Matthews provided the following insights:

 While her institution’s complaint process is not listed in parallel with others, it follows a similar structure.  The complaint process is currently included under the eLearning section with a statement outlining the procedure.  Buffy also mentioned plans to add the NC-SARA complaint process for additional details and clarity. Angel emphasized that the complaint process should ideally be listed in at least two locations within the catalog to ensure accessibility for students. c. Ghost Students: Buffy Matthews (MGCCC) raised concerns about identifying and managing ghost students in technical courses. She shared the following observations and suggestions:  Ghost students are typically found in Technical online courses.  Buffy suggested adding a statement to the Policies and Procedures Manual to help identify these students earlier, preventing issues such as impacts on financial aid eligibility .  She also recommended that we look at updating the no-show dates in online courses to avoid these ghost students getting financial aid awards before the no-show drop date.  Buffy noted that her institution has successfully flagged some ghost students before classes even begin , though she is not directly involved in the identification process.  Once identified, these students are flagged within the system to restrict their ability to register for additional classes .  One recommendation that Buffy uses in her online courses is to require students to submit a video introduction within the first week. If students fail to participate , they are automatically dropped from the course . She further added that after reviewing the issue with the consortium, it may be necessary to address this challenge further. The group continued to discuss this issue among themselves. d. Respondus (LockDown Browser): Erin Richardson brought up that, years ago, the consortium purchased LockDown Browser for consortium-wide use. She shared insights from a recent pilot program conducted over the summer at her institution:  Instructors used LockDown Browser not only for fully proctored online testing but also for non-proctored exams with time constraints and even for certain assignments in face-to-face classes.  Results from the pilot showed that grades improved when LockDown Browser was used for non-proctored exams with time restraints.

Aaron Payne asked how many schools are currently using LockDown Browser in similar ways and whether the consortium might consider adopting it for consortium-wide use again. Buffy Matthews (MGCCC) mentioned that her institution uses LockDown Browser, even in face-to-face classes , and has found it beneficial. Dr. LeBrun was asked for her thoughts on LockDown Browser. She provided the following input:  If the group is interested, she can request a quote from Respondus on behalf of the consortium.  She reminded the group that in 2018 , when budget cuts impacted the consortium, they lost access to usage reports for services like Dropout Detective and Respondus. This loss of data was a key factor in discontinuing those services.  Dr. LeBrun emphasized the importance of considering methodologies to replace the insights previously provided by usage reports . Dr. LeBrun confirmed that she will reach out to Respondus to request a quote for LockDown Browser. I. Announcements a. None J. Adjournment a. Adjourned at 10:42 a.m. i. Motion to adjourn: Anna Davis ii. Second Motion: Michele Mitchell

Mississippi eLearning Association Minutes Wednesday, October 15 at 9:00 a.m. Virtual Meeting Link https://itsmsgov.zoom.us/j/82041193066?pwd=dpZTHMd4P44KvaHkYx4bddVxVAO5at.1 College/Association Representative(s) Coahoma Community College Ms. Monica Johnson Copiah-Lincoln Community College Ms. Renae Breakfield, Ms. Anna Davis East Central Community College Mr. Matt Blackwell, Ms. Dee Dee McCraw East Mississippi Community College Ms. Coranette “Chris" Square Hinds Community College Mr. Kelton Kemp, Ms. Jasmine Shepherd Holmes Community College Ms. Shalon Farris, Ms. Heather Guest Itawamba Community College Ms. Denise Gillespie, Ms. Tequila Sunrise Jones College Ms. Kelly Robinson

Meridian Community College

Ms. Holley Purvis; Ms. Erin Richardson

Mississippi Delta Community College

No Representative

Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College Ms. Buffy Matthews, Mr. Van Morse, Ms. Michelle Pickering, Northeast Mississippi Community College Ms. Kim Harris, Ms. Sabine Zabarovska Northwest Mississippi Community College Ms. Kim Steinman Pearl River Community College Ms. Ali Mascagni, Ms. Michele Mitchell

Southwest Mississippi Community College Mr. Matt Calhoun MS Community College Board

Ms. Megan Akins, Dr. Krista LeBrun, Dr. Christa Wilhite

Office

College/Association Ms. Kelly Robinson

Name

President

JC

President Elect Ms. Sarah Buchanan

MDCC EMCC

Secretary

Ms. Coranette “Chris” Square

1. Preliminaries A. Call to Order: Sarah Buchanan (JJC) B. Roll Call: Coranette “Chris” Square (EMCC) C. Approval of September 2025 Minutes

1. Motion to approve : Ms.Buffy Matthews (MGCC) 2. Second to approve : Ms. Michelle Mitchell (PRCC) 3. Approved by all 14 community colleges D. Approval of October 2025 Agenda 1. Motion to approve: Ms. Buffy Matthews (MGCCC) 2. Second to approve: Ms. Monica Johnson (CCC) 3. Approved by all 14 community colleges E. MCCB Reports 1. Dr. Krista LeBrun (MCCB)

a. Update on CidiLabs Agreement: Dr. LeBrun provided an update on the CidiLabs agreement . She shared that they were able to reach an agreement on the contract language after previously expressing concerns about certain terms. With the involvement of the legal teams , both sides came to an understanding and signed off on the draft agreement . Dr. LeBrun explained that the agreement was expected to take effect on October 1st , with both parties signing around that time. However, as of October 15th , the agreement has still not been fully executed . She is currently waiting for a callback from a representative at ITS to determine when the contract will officially go into effect.

Dr. LeBrun noted that since CidiLabs prefers not to start agreements mid month , ITS may be considering a November 1st start date . If that is the case, the agreement will need to be modified to reflect the new effective date, since it currently lists October 1st . Dr. LeBrun emphasized that the agreement has been signed on their end , and they are simply waiting for full execution. She apologized to the group for the delay and mentioned that she had received a call from ITS earlier that morning but it was not the update she had been anticipating. Dr. LeBrun assured the group that she will provide an update as soon as she receives confirmation regarding the agreement’s activation. b. Brainfuse Addendum for 6,000 Hour (Requires Action): Dr. LeBrun provided an update on Brainfuse usage and contract status. She shared that she received the detailed usage report for September yesterday afternoon. c. For September , the consortium used 2,746 tutoring hours , totaling $63,169 for the month. As of now, for the current fiscal year 2026 (July through June), the consortium has used a little over 3,500 hours , amounting to more than $79,000 spent.  The rate is $23 per hour , consistent with the RFP agreement .  The remaining balance for FY2026 is approximately $147,000 . As a reminder, Dr. LeBrun provided the following figures from previous years:  FY2025: 12,427 hours used → approximately $285,000 .  FY2024: 14,000 hours used → approximate ly $322,000 .  The total contract authorizes a spending limit of $834,924 . d. Dr. LeBrun noted that, based on current usage patterns, she does not expect the remaining balance to last through the end of FY2026 . With only about 6,000 hours remaining, she projected that the consortium may run out of funds around February , given the steady increase in hours used month to month. Currently:  6,300 tutoring hours remain available.

For comparison:  September 2023: Under 2,000 hours used.  September 2024: Around 2,270 hours used.

 September 2025: Over 2,700 hours used . Because of the upward trend, ITS has recommended that the consortium add an addendum to the current contract to extend usage. Dr. LeBrun proposed adding 6,000 additional hours , which would provide enough flexibility to carry the consortium through the remainder of the fiscal year. She clarified that the consortium is only billed for hours actually used , so the addendum would request an additional $138,000 in spending authority , without requiring immediate expenditure. The current contract expires on June 30 , so this addendum would need to be executed first before initiating the renewal process for next year. Dr. LeBrun also noted that this matter was discussed with college presidents and presented at the presidents’ meeting last month to prepare them for a potential action item at the October 28th meeting. A motion was made by Ms. Buffy Matthews (MGCCC) to proceed with the contract addendum for an additional 6,000 tutoring hours . The motion was seconded by Ms. Michelle Mitchell (PRCC) and was approved by 14 community colleges . e. SmarterServices Renewal (Requires Action) : Dr. LeBrun provided an update on the SmarterServices contract , noting that the current agreement is set to expire on March 31st , with a start date of April 1st . She explained that she has been working to modify contract timelines so that they align with the start or end of academic semesters. Her goal is to avoid service interruptions in the middle of a semester. Dr. LeBrun noted that many major contracts, totaling several million dollars, begin on July 1st . To better balance workloads and timelines, she has been in conversation with SmarterServices about modifying the start date of this contract to January 1st , moving it away from the middle of the spring term. The document provided to the group, titled Product and Service , reflects what she referred to as a bridge contract . The plan is to have the current agreement conclude on March 31st and extend it through December 31st , adding nine additional months .

Dr. LeBrun shared that, after consulting with ITS , she could potentially process an addendum to extend the existing contract through December

31, 2025 , serving as a bridge until the next full renewal. Beginning January 1st , the consortium would then enter into a three-year agreement , consistent with prior renewals. She confirmed that she has reviewed this plan with SmarterServices and that the renewal includes a modest 2% annual increase , which aligns with historical averages. SmarterServices has never requested more than a 3% increase , complying with state procurement guidelines , which require justification for increases exceeding 3%. She emphasized that this proposed adjustment is both reasonable and consistent with past agreements. The services covered under this agreement include the Test Center and SmarterProctoring . Dr. LeBrun requested action on this item , as the contract will require both an addendum and a renewal depending on ITS’s final review of the documentation she has already submitted. She mentioned that she typically must submit renewals 120 business days prior to the contract start date , so she is working quickly to meet that requirement. Dr. LeBrun shared that obtaining the necessary documentation from SmarterServices took longer than expected but commended their new sales manager , Carroll , and her team for successfully delivering what was needed for the ITS submission . She confirmed that the matter will also be presented at the Presidents’ Meeting on October 28th for approval. A motion was made by Ms. Buffy Matthews (MGCCC) to approve an addendum to the SmarterServices contract to extend it through December 31, 2025 . The motion was seconded by Ms. Monica Johnson (CCC). Dr. LeBrun then asked for confirmation on whether the group wanted her to seek approval solely for the bridge contract or for both the bridge plus the new three-year renewal . Ms. Buffy Matthews (MGCCC) motioned to proceed with both—the bridge agreement and the three-year renewal .

Ms. Michelle Mitchell (PRCC) seconded the motion. The motion was approved by all 14 community colleges .

Dr. LeBrun stated she will forward both action items to Dr. Graham for inclusion on the MAC Presidents’ Agenda for the October 28, 2026, meeting and will update the group with the results once available. 2. Dr. Christa Wilhite (MCCB) a. Quality Letters Reminders: Dr. Wilhite reminded the group that Quality Letters are due at the end of October . She mentioned that, as of her last check, five institutions have already submitted their letters. Dr. Wilhite emphasized that she will need a submission from every institution . Once all submissions are received, she plans to create a flip book featuring the letters and make it available for download . b. DEN (Digital Educators Network) Updates : Dr. Wilhite shared that she sent an email last week regarding the Digital Educator’s Network webinar course , which is now live . She noted that she is currently working on promotional materials for the course, but wanted to provide more details on how it will function. Dr. Wilhite explained that she is trying a new approach this year in response to past feedback about course clutter . Previously, each individual webinar offered through the Academy required its own separate course, resulting in:  A very lengthy catalog when webinars were switched to on demand format.  The need for instructors to register separately for each session, creating unnecessary complexity on their Canvas dashboards. To simplify access, all webinars for the entire fiscal year are now being consolidated into one course . Once an instructor registers for this single course, they will receive:  Announcements and updates when new webinars are added, canceled, or rescheduled.  Automatic notifications, provided they set up their notification preferences within the course. Within the course, Zoom registration links will be used for individual webinars. This allows Dr. Wilhite to track participation data , including who registers, attends live, or watches the recording later.

All webinar recordings will remain available within the course, allowing faculty to access content on demand at their convenience.

F. MSVCC Committee Reports 1. Admin – No Report 2. Support – No Report 3. Quality – No Report G. Old Business – No Report H. Action Items

a. Calendar - Ms. Buffy Matthews (MGCC) stated that she had provided the document to everyone back in July for review. She noted that a few changes were made following that review, which is why this version represents the second draft . Ms. Buffy Matthews (MGCC) recommended that the group move forward with approval , unless anyone had additional edits, explaining that the document needs to be submitted to the Academic Officers Association for their review and approval. Ms. Denise Gillespie (ICC) mentioned that the Academic Officers Association meeting is scheduled for next week on the 21st , but she will be unable to attend in person. She asked if someone from the group could present the document at that meeting. Mr. Matt Calhoun (SWCC) volunteered, stating that he plans to attend the meeting and can bring it forward for discussion. A motion to approve the second draft was made by Ms. Kelly Robinson (JC) and Chris Square (EMCC) seconded the motion. The motion was approved by all 12 community colleges.

I. Open Forum – No Items J. Announcements – No Items K. Adjournment a. Adjourned at 9:29 a.m.

i. Motion to adjourn: Ms. Buffy Matthews (MGCC) ii. Second Motion: Ms. Monica Johnson (CCC)

Figure 1: Brainfuse Invoice

Figure 2: SmarterProctoring & RegisterBlast License

Figure 3 – MSVCC Internal Control Dates

Mississippi eLearning Association Minutes Wednesday, November 12 at 9:00 a.m. Virtual Meeting Link https://itsmsgov.zoom.us/j/84162655215?pwd=9UmdJ8EdNoVwoab7KFBYnxmAFGLzbI.1 College/Association Representative(s) Coahoma Community College Ms. Monica Johnson Copiah-Lincoln Community College Ms. Renae Breakfield, Ms. Anna Davis East Central Community College Mr. Matt Blackwell, Ms. Dee McCraw East Mississippi Community College No Attendee Hinds Community College Mr. Kelton Kemp, Ms. Jasmine Shepherd Holmes Community College Ms. Shalon Farris, Ms. Heather Guest Itawamba Community College Ms. Denise Gillespie, Ms. Tequila Sunrise, Melanie Francis Jones College Ms. Kelly Robinson

Meridian Community College

Ms. Holley Purvis; Ms. Erin Richardson

Mississippi Delta Community College

Sarah Buchanan

Ms. Buffy Matthews, Mr. Van Morse, Ms. Michelle Pickering,

Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College

Northeast Mississippi Community College

Ms. Kim Harris, Ms. Sabine Zabarovska

Northwest Mississippi Community College Angel Nickens, Aaron Payne

Pearl River Community College Ms. Michele Mitchell Southwest Mississippi Community College Mr. Matt Calhoun MS Community College Board

Ms. Megan Akins, Dr. Krista LeBrun, Dr. Christa Wilhite

Office

College/Association Ms. Kelly Robinson

Name

President

JC

President Elect Ms. Sarah Buchanan

MDCC EMCC

Secretary

Ms. Coranette “Chris” Square

1. Preliminaries A. Call to Order: Kelly Robinson (JJC) B. Roll Call: Kelly Robinson (JJC) C. Approval of October 2025 Minutes

1. Motion to approve : Ms.Buffy Matthews (MGCC) 2. Second to approve : Ms. Sarah Buchanan (MDCC) 3. Approved by all 14 community colleges D. Approval of November 2025 Agenda

1. Motion to approve: Ms. Buffy Matthews (MGCCC) 2. Second to approve: Ms. Monica Johnson (CCC) 3. Approved by all 13 community colleges E. MCCB Reports 1. Dr. Christa Wilhite (MCCB) reported for Dr. Krista LeBrun (MCCB)

a. Update on Current Contracts: Dr. Wilhite shared an update on current contracts , noting that Brainfuse and AspireEDU are both set to expire at the end of the current fiscal year . She mentioned that Dr. LeBrun has already requested renewal quotes for both services. Once received, those quotes will be distributed to the group so a vote can be taken to determine whether the association wishes to renew the contracts . b. An update was provided regarding the Turnitin contract , which is currently still under legal review . The process involves ongoing

discussions between legal counsel and ITS to address requested changes and additions that Turnitin is asking MCCB to approve. At this time, the contract has been temporarily extended through the end of the current year under the existing agreement . However, to renew Turnitin beyond the final two years of that contract, all updated terms must be fully reviewed, approved by legal, and formally executed . Following discussions with the Support Committee and exploratory conversations with ITS , the group has begun considering whether it would be beneficial to issue a Request for Information (RFI) before pursuing a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) . This would allow the association to: • Assess available alternatives in the market • Gauge vendor interest • Identify tools that are comparable to Turnitin The Support Committee has already begun researching potential alternatives and has determined that other tools may or may not offer similar functionality . The committee is continuing its evaluation process to better clearly define options and capabilities before any formal procurement steps are taken. c. Brainfuse Contract Addendum Approval and Submission : The request for additional Brainfuse tutoring hours has been approved by both the association and the presidents . The request has now been submitted to ITS , allowing them to begin the process of extending the contract hours. This extension is intended to carry the association through the remainder of the fiscal year and ensure sufficient tutoring hours are available to meet student needs. d. SmarterServices Business Case and ProctorU Reminder : An update was provided regarding SmarterServices , noting that the required business case for both the bridge agreement and the renewal has been completed and submitted . According to ITS , Dr. LeBrun is expected to appear before the ITS Board in either November or December to present the business case and obtain approval. After board approval, the agreement will proceed through the standard approval chain . No issues are anticipated with this process. Dr. Wilhite added that during a recent monthly check-in with Sean and Carolyn , SmarterServices requested a reminder be shared with the group regarding ProctorU . Any institution wishing to continue using ProctorU

for virtual proctoring must have a current contract on file with both ProctorU and SmarterServices by December 31st . This ensures a proper support structure is in place and that institutions have a clear point of contact should issues arise. Dr. Wilhite noted that this requirement was previously communicated at last year's Tupelo MELO Retreat. She also mentioned that she has a senior-level customer management contact at ProctorU and can share that information with the association if needed.

F. MSVCC Committee Reports 1. Admin – No Report

2. Support – Anna Davis (CLCC) shared that a draft document was previously sent out. She stated that she will resend the draft to the group after the meeting so it can be distributed to instructors at each institution for feedback. The purpose of collecting this feedback is to clearly identify instructional needs and support the development of a rubric to be used when reviewing and comparing other potential products . 3. Quality – Michelle Pickering (MGCCC) reported that the Quality Committee has not yet met . However, she shared that she has identified several valuable resources related to outcomes , which she plans to share with the group , including materials from Texas A&M . Michelle also noted that she recently attended a session on outcomes , focusing on how to build and manage outcomes through sub-accounts . The committee will continue collaborating to gather information from other institutions regarding best practices for outcomes. Figure 1: Plagiarism Detection Platform Evaluation

G. Old Business – No Report H. Action Items – No Report I. Open Forum – No Items J. Announcements – No Items K. Adjournment

a. Adjourned at 9:41:56 a.m.

i. Motion to adjourn: Ms. Buffy Matthews (MGCC) ii. Second Motion: Ms. Denise Gillespie (ICC)

Figure 1:

Mississippi eLearning Association

Minutes

Wednesday, January 14 at 9:00 a.m. Virtual Meeting Link

https://itsmsgov.zoom.us/j/88549745242?pwd=AXdX7WfAojam3dEFR119YgpKmgwzGV.1

College/Association

Representative(s)

Coahoma Community College

Ms. Monica Johnson

Copiah-Lincoln Community College

Ms. Renae Breakfield, Ms. Anna Davis

East Central Community College

Ms. Dee McCraw

East Mississippi Community College

Dr. Coranette “Chris” Square

Hinds Community College

Mr. Kelton Kemp, Ms. Jasmine Shepherd

Holmes Community College

Ms. Shalon Farris, Ms. Heather Guest

Ms. Denise Gillespie, Ms. Tequila Sunrise, Melanie Francis

Itawamba Community College

Jones College

No Attendance

Meridian Community College

Ms. Holley Purvis; Ms. Erin Richardson

Mississippi Delta Community College

Ms. Sarah Buchanan

Ms. Buffy Matthews, Mr. Van Morse, Ms. Michelle Pickering,

Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College

Northeast Mississippi Community College

Ms. Kim Harris, Ms. Sabine Zabarovska

Ms. Angel Nickens, Ms. Kim Steinman, Ms. Carla Malone

Northwest Mississippi Community College

Pearl River Community College

Ms. Michele Mitchell, Ms. Ali Mascagni

Southwest Mississippi Community College Mr. Matt Calhoun

MS Community College Board

Ms. Megan Akins, Dr. Krista LeBrun

Office

College/Association

Name

President

Ms. Kelly Robinson

JC

President Elect Ms. Sarah Buchanan

MDCC

Secretary

Dr . Coranette “Chris” Square

EMCC

1. Preliminaries

A. Call to Order: Ms. Sarah Buchanan (MDCC) at 9:04

B. Roll Call: Dr. Coranette “Chris” Square (EMCC)

C. Approval of November 2025 Minutes

1. Motion to approve : Ms.Buffy Matthews (MGCC) 2. Second to approve : Ms. Denise Gillespie (ICC) 3. Approved by all 14 community colleges

D. Approval of January 2026 Agenda

1. Motion to approve: Ms. Buffy Matthews (MGCCC) 2. Second to approve: Ms. Kim Steinman (NWCC) 3. Approved by all 14 community colleges

E. MCCB Reports

1. Dr. Krista LeBrun (MCCB)

a. Mississippi Commission on College Accreditation (MCCA) - Dr. LeBrun noted that each year, the colleges complete the Mississippi SARA (State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement) process. This documentation must be submitted to Sheriece Robinson (IHL) with a deadline of February 13, 2026 this year. b. She stated that she plans to take the procurement request for this item to the MCCB Board on Friday. The estimated cost is approximately $54,000 , and she noted that MCCA fees were increased within the last year or two to better align with national SARA fees . c. Dr. LeBrun explained that she typically submits both the MCCA and NC SARA applications together. NC SARA is the national component of state

authorization. Mississippi is a member state , and each community college participates individually in SARA. d. After each college submits its application and payment made to MCCA , and once approval is granted, that approval triggers the NC SARA process. Colleges will then receive an email containing a PDF invoice. Dr. LeBrun requested that when this email is received, institutions either:

• Forward the email directly to her, or • Send the PDF invoice as an attachment

She emphasized that the PDF is required because it contains all the necessary information for payment approval.

e. Dr. LeBrun stated that she will be taking both fees to the MCCB Board for approval on Friday:

• MCCA fee: $54,000 • NC SARA fee: $59,400

f. Dr. LeBrun provided context on current fee structures:

•

Under 2,500 FTEs: o

MCCA: $2,000

NC SARA: $2,200

o

•

Under 4,000 FTEs: o

NC SARA: $4,000

MCCA: $4,400

o

g. She noted that the fees are now closely aligned , though they increased significantly when IHL restructured . At this time, no action is required other than:

o Watching for Sheriece Robinson’s email , if it has not already been received o Ensuring that applications are submitted

h. The invoice reflects a due date of February 13 , so institutions should anticipate submitting materials within the next few weeks.

2. Brainfuse Amendment #1

a. The procurement request for Amendment One has been completed and has received all required approvals . Because the procurement exceeds $50,000 , it must be presented to the Board for approval this Friday . As of November 30 , the remaining balance with Brainfuse is $33,394 , with 1,451 tutoring hours remaining. The December invoice is expected to arrive tomorrow and is expected to be under $33,000 . Once approved by

the Board, the contract amendment will be executed on Friday , including a $138,000 infusion to extend tutoring hours. b. This year represents the final year of the current Brainfuse contract with ITS, which was established through an RFP process . It was noted that the group did not want two procurements under the same vendor name active in ITS at the same time. A renewal quote will be brought forward for a vote next month , after which the procurement process can begin. The renewal contract does not need to be in place immediately , as the $138,000 infusion is expected to carry usage until approximately August 1 or September 1 , though the target start date is July 1 . To meet ITS’s requirement of 120 business days for procurement processing, the renewal procurement should be initiated in March . • The AspireEDU contract is set to expire on June 30, 2026 . • A renewal quote has been requested. • Once received, the quote will be distributed via email for group review and consideration. Pricing is expected to remain at $23 per hour , as secured under the existing RFP . • The group is aiming for approximately 15,000 tutoring hours annually , with unused hours allowed to roll over . • Questions were raised regarding Brainfuse usage during discussions related to Amendment Number One . • At this time, there is no cap on usage , though the group acknowledged this may need to be reconsidered moving forward. • Dr. Wilhite will provide administrative access to Brainfuse usage reports for institutional administrators. The SmarterServices contract has now reached $1 million , requiring ITS Board approval , which is expected to occur in February . • The contract expiration/start date is being adjusted from March 31 to January 1 to better align with the start of the fiscal year . • Due to sole source procurement limitations , the renewal will be for 2.9 years rather than a full three years. • Jason (SmarterServices) confirmed that there will be no loss of service on March 31 , even if the contract has not yet been fully executed by that date. b. Brainfuse • c. SmarterServices •

3. Expiring Contracts a. AspireEDU

d. Turnitin •

The Turnitin contract is set to expire on June 30, 2026 .

• A one-year contract was previously executed due to complications related to the Master Registration Agreement (MRA) . • Legal counsel from both MCCB and ITS has advised against signing the contract in its current form . • Ongoing concerns remain regarding Turnitin’s data usage policies , particularly related to data retention and use after contract termination . • Individual institutions entering into separate agreements • Piggybacking off an existing RFP from another state , with Copyleaks identified as a possible alternative • A decision on the path forward will need to be made by March . • Turnitin pricing has varied significantly in past contracts. • The group discussed the possibility of issuing an RFP to gain greater control and clarity over future contracts. • It was noted that there is a perception that Turnitin does not view itself as having a monopoly , which may impact negotiations. Updates are forthcoming to the Enrollment Audit and Reporting Guidelines . • One goal is to develop an HTML version of the guidelines for easier online access and navigation . • Potential revisions may include attendance requirements for virtual courses . o Van was asked to speak in the event Support Committee members were unable to attend. o Krista addressed all relevant Support Committee matters. o Van confirmed that Krista “pretty much covered everything,” including current contract-related issues . o A resource link was shared in the chat. 3. Quality o The Quality Committee has not met recently. o Committee is continuing to work on learning outcomes and course standards updates. 4. Old Business o No old business was brought forward. 5. Action Items o None identified at this time. 1. Admin – No updates were reported at this time. 2. Support

If an agreement cannot be reached, potential options include:

4. Enrollment Audit and Reporting Guideline •

F. MSVCC Committee Reports