ANNUAL REPORTS

2010-11

ACADEMIC PROGRAMS COUNCIL (Norman)

ATHLETICS COUNCIL (University)

BUDGET COUNCIL (Norman)

CAMPUS PLANNING COUNCIL (Norman) [inactive]

CONTINUING EDUCATION COUNCIL (University)

COUNCIL ON FACULTY AWARDS AND HONORS (University)

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (Norman)

RESEARCH COUNCIL (Norman)

FACULTY COMPENSATION COMMITTEE (Norman)

FACULTY WELFARE COMMITTEE (Norman)

Distributed by the Faculty Senate Office

University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)

July 2011

Academic Programs Council (norman)

2010-11 Annual Report

Submitted by Jerry Crain, Chair

Academic Programs Council (APC) is comprised of nine faculty appointees, four student appointees and four ex-officio, non-voting members. Faculty members participating on the Council are listed in Table 1. Throughout this Academic Year (AY11), Professor Jerry Crain served as APC Chair, Professor Karen Hayes-Thumann chaired the Course and Curriculum sub-committee and Professor Al Schwarzkopf chaired the Policy and Program sub-committee. The Council met during the first week of the month (Wednesdays in the Fall, and Tuesdays in the Spring) in Buchanan Hall. This year’s Council was able to transition to entirely paperless procedures for managing proposed Courses (using CourseLeaf) and Programs (using Desire to Learn). This led to Council’s ability to handle significantly higher numbers of proposals in the peak months, and to be able to respond to some urgently needed proposals at the end of the year with accuracy and consistency of service. AY11 was completed with only two (one Certificate and one Minor) May-submitted, multi-disciplinary proposals left on the table.

Table 1: Faculty appointed to Academic Programs Council. These members were active in assessing proposals electronically and in communicating deficiencies to the proposing entities.

Name	Department	Sub-Committee	Nominated by	Term
Jerry Crain	Elect/Comp Engineering	APC Chair	Faculty Senate	2010-2013
Karen Hayes-Thumann	Art & Art History	Courses Chair	Faculty Senate	2008-2011
Marilyn Breen**	Math	Courses	President	2009-2012
Lee Fithian	Architecture	Courses	Faculty Senate	2010-2011
Mitchell Smith*	Political Science	Courses	President	2010-2013
Al Schwarzkopf	Management Info Science	Programs Chair	President	2008-2011
Irene Karpiak	Educational Leadership	Programs	Faculty Senate	2009-2012
Sean O’Neil	Anthropology	Programs	Faculty Senate	2009-2012
Tony Roath	Marketing & Supply Chain	Programs	Faculty Senate	2010-2013

It should be noted that Mitchell Smith* was appointed to replace Penny Pasque at the beginning of the Academic year. Marilyn Breen** was only able to participate via correspondence during the Spring 2011 semester, but was able to provide valuable, electronic commentary for use by attending committee members.

Ex-Officio members include Dr. Nancy Mergler (Provost), Dr. Paul Bell (Vice Provost for Instruction), Matthew Hamilton (Registrar and Vice President for Enrollment and Student Financial Services), and Judy Cain (Coordinator of Curriculum Changes and Academic Publications). The first three of these members were available and provided much-needed consultancies to the Council on a number of policy and procedural issues. Council also had benefit of attendance by Mechelle Gibson who represented the Provost’s Office and helped with the smooth transition to “paperless operation” of the APC this year.

Judy Cain provided primary staff support for Council. She coordinated proposal inputs with the authors, supported and implemented changes at and after Council meetings, and organized the materials ultimately to be sent forward. Jean Ware (Manager of Administration and Operations for Admissions and Records) continued to support the committee this year. No Student appointees reported to the Council, so we did not have benefit of student representation on the Council.

Transition to paperless operation was affected in the first two months of AY11. Extra training support from LeepFrog officers and from the Banner team provided assistance in quickly bringing management of new course proposals into full operation. Judy Cain organized a workshop to inform College and Department staff on usage of and making proper inputs to CourseLeaf in proposing and managing catalog information. Instructions to faculty for making inputs and tracking status of course proposals are now posted on the Provost’s website. APC members were given full access to review new course proposals. The self-checking features of CourseLeaf resolved many of the ‘detail’ problems so that Council members could focus on consistency of process, communication across and between colleges and other big-picture aspects of course-curriculum logistics.

Management of Program Proposals was handled electronically using the in-place features of an APC dedicated page on Desire 2 Learn (learn.ou.edu). Each month, a list of substantive and non-substantive course proposals to be reviewed was posted, along with electronic file versions of each proposal. After Council meeting, these files were either moved to “Pending” status, or to the “Recommended” tab as they were forwarded to the Provost with recommendation for action. Pending proposals were returned electronically to the proposers with a letter of clarification from Council leadership. Other important links were available on the “Content” area of this courseware. D2L was also used to distribute lists of course proposals so that APC members could proceed directly to Course Leaf for electronic review. Council members were also provided with a CD version of the OU Catalog at the start of the year, although we came to rely on the web-based version for up-to-the-minute accuracy.

Electronic review of proposals simplified APC operation and allowed greater numbers of proposals to be given proper service during peak months. Table 2 shows the AY11 and month-to-month proposal requests to the Council. This year’s activity shows a 46% increase in the number of course proposals completed but only a 5% increase in program proposals over last year’s total count.

The colleges of Arts and Sciences (30%), Liberal Studies (28%) and Engineering (12%) accounted for over 70% of the course proposals submitted, while last year the top three (Education replacing Engineering) accounted for over 95% of the turnover. Program proposals for AY11 were very similar to AY10 in both quantity and distribution among colleges. The most remarkable change is that APC was able to handle over 400 course proposals in a single month … nearly four times last year’s peak.

Table 2: AY11 Proposals received by APC for Courses [C] (637) and Programs [P] (100) showing monthly details, summaries by College, and totals compared to AY10.

Total AY 2011		Colleges	Oct. 2009		Nov. 2009		Dec. 2009		Feb. 2010		Mar. 2010		Apr. 2010		May 2010		June 2010
C	P		C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P
0	0	Academic Affairs
0	1	Architecture				1
193	33	Arts & Sciences							164	5	1	7	14	18	14	3
29	7	Atmospheric & Geog. Sciences	9		4		8	3	5	4	1				2
39	9	Business	8				5		14	7	11	1	1	1
3	1	CCE										1			3
16	4	Earth & Energy	4		10				1					3	1	1
88	5	Education	49					1			13	1		1	26	2
32	12	Engineering	1		4				15	2		4	1	5	6		5	1
38	2	Fine Arts							35	1		1	3
1	4	Graduate		2					1							2
0	0	Honors
13	7	International & Area Studies							13	5		1				1
4	7	Journalism		4											4	3
0	2	Law		1								1
180	5	Liberal Studies		2		1	6		152					1	22	1
1	0	University College							1
0	1	University-wide		1
637	100	TOTAL REQUESTS	71	10	18	2	19	4	401	24	26	17	19	29	78	13	5	1

434	96	Last Year	24	5	19	4	97	7	112	42	53	15	53	14	76	7	0	2

This year again saw an increase in the number of proposals for Certificates. Work done by last year’s APC committee facilitated greater uniformity in these offerings and established benchmarks with which to evaluate these proposals as appropriate to forward for action. Similarly, we were able to coordinate with program proposers to assure Minors be structured in full compliance with the OSRHE guidelines.

This report has made much ado of the impact made by all-electronic processes. However, none of this could have been accomplished without the commitment, the expertise, and the open dialogue of the people serving on this Council. Each is to be commended for their individual dedication to and for the excellent results produced by this team.

APC members voted at the May 3 meeting to retain the current chairs in their same positions for AY12. Pending approval and re-appointments as required, Prof Crain will be APC Chair, Prof Schwarzkopf will chair the Policy and Program Subcommittee, and Prof Hayes-Thumann will chair the Course and Curriculum Subcommittee.

athletics Council

2010-11 Annual Report

Submitted by James L. Regens, Chair

The Council was established by the University Regents and has the responsibility to advise the President and Athletics Director on matters related to the governance of intercollegiate athletics. The Council utilizes committees (Academic Integrity, Fiscal Integrity, Gender Equity and Sportsmanship, Governance and Compliance) for oversight of the Athletics Department. The Council, through the Chair, also provides reports to the Faculty Senates on both the Health Science Center and Norman campuses.

The Council had five meetings during the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 semesters. Meetings were held: October 13, 2010; November 22, 2010; February 16, 2011; March 30, 2011; and June 28, 2011. In addition to the Athletic Director, senior members of the Athletic Department staff as well as other Department staff attended those meetings to provide reports and respond to Council questions.

Faculty and Staff Members

Matthew Cloud, Kelly Damphousse, Jody Foote, Craig Hofford, Penny Hopkins, Emily Johnson, Charles

Kimball, Maggie McGowan, Larry Regens, and Francene Weatherby

Alumni Members

Sandy Kinney and Lindy Ritz

Student Members

Ronald Faram, Beaux Gerber, Nicole Jenkins, Joshua Moses, and Kristin Smith

Ex‐Officio

Joe Castiglione (Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics Programs and Director of Athletics) and

Connie Dillon (Faculty Athletics Representative)

Secretary to the Council

Francene Monenerkit

Athletic Department Liaisons and Staff

Scott Anderson, Lizzy Gomez, Luther Lee, Jason Leonard, Brandon Martin, Nicki Moore, Larry Naifeh, and

Greg Phillips

Academic Integrity and Student Welfare (Chair: Emily Johnson)

The Athletic Department in conjunction with the Center for Student Affairs jointly conducted the 5th in a

series of analyses of academic performance, persistence, and graduation of specially‐admitted student

athletes (1998‐2008 cohorts) compared to non‐specially admitted student athletes and all students. The

committee noted that Regents policy allows up to 8% of all students admitted to qualify for special

admission. Key recommendations of the report included: (1) strategic academic support and

intervention mechanisms that enhance the 1st semester and 1st year academic successes are likely to pay

off and (2) the NCAA regulation requiring all student athletes to declare their major prior to the start of

the 3rd year appears to be beneficial.

The Athletic Department provided detailed reports on student athlete GPAs and graduation by sport.

Additional information provided breakouts of academic performance by gender and ethnicity. Student

athlete majors for fall 2010, including breakouts by sport, were provided. Based upon the NCAA’s

Graduation Success Rate (GSR) used by the NCAA to track student‐athlete graduation, seven University

teams for the 2003‐04 cohort graduated 100% of their student athletes. Underscoring the continuing

effectiveness of policies moving our student‐athletes toward graduation, seven of OU’s teams recorded

a perfect academic progress rate for 2009‐10.

The Council also reviewed the Athletic Department’s academic advising service. The Council engaged in

a discussion regarding the increase in the number of student‐athletes choosing to major in

Multidisciplinary Studies and Council members noted that this was also a trend among our regular

student population as well. Dr. Moore (Senior Associate Athletic Director for Academics & Student Life;

Senior Woman Administrator) described efforts being made with academic advisors to ensure that

student‐athletes are not being steered into certain programs, but that they are being advised into

programs that best meet their academic goals.

The Council unanimously approved the Academic Integrity Committee’s recommendations for Student‐

Athlete Academic Awards.

Fiscal Integrity (Chair: Matthew Cloud)

For 12th consecutive year, the Department ended the fiscal year (FY 2011) with a balanced budget

without benefit of state appropriations. The Council took note of the fact that OU is one of the few

NCAA member schools which maintain a balanced budget without relying on state funding.

The Athletic Department contributed to University general fund through the academic enhancement

fee, which was increased this past year from $2 to $5 per football ticket sold generating approximately

$2 million toward the University general fund and also through $1.8 million provided through the

redistribution program. Coupled with the annual contribution to the University libraries and other

indirect revenues, the Athletic Department provided $9+ million dollars in support of academic

programs on the University’s Norman campus.

The Athletic Department continues to implement cost saving measures in anticipation of further

declines in the state economy in the near term. The 2012 budget projections for expenditures and

revenues continue to be conservative projecting an increase in expenditures of two percent and a

decline in revenues

The Council noted that the balance of working capital loan was paid off by the Department off during FY

2011, eleven years ahead of schedule.

Gender Equity and Sportsmanship (Chair: Jody Foote)

Committee members met in November 2010 with Dr. Moore. She briefed members on some of the

activities of the OU Athletics Department regarding equity and diversity:

• Diversity and Inclusion Plan

• Diversity Graduate Assistant Program (2‐year program for graduate assistants)

• Athletics Diversity Council Education Program (7‐session training program)

The committee also discussed possible topics to consider in the future:

• Student athlete integration

• Sportsmanship

• Male student athletes

In April 2011 committee members met with consultant and sports law attorney Janet Judge, who was

hired by the OU Athletics Department to conduct a comprehensive review in the area of gender equity.

In addition to her presentation to the Gender Equity and Sportsmanship Subcommittee, she held

interviews with coaches, staff, and administrators, inspected athletic facilities, and reviewed documents

related to gender equity.

Jody Foote, committee chair, attended the Athletics Department 7‐session Diversity Education Program,

September 2010 through March 2011.

Governance and Compliance (Chair: Maggie McGowan)

The Council reviewed the annual Governance and Compliance report. Key elements of the report

included highlights of major infraction cases nationally and preventive measures taken by the University,

key compliance staff and responsibilities, monitoring policies, rules education practices, and an analysis

of secondary violations and waivers.

Mr. Leonard (Executive Director, Athletics Compliance) provided for the Council a summary of key

national issues addressed by Julie Roe, NCAA Vice President of Enforcement during a special session at

the January 2010 NCAA Convention. He advised the Council that several coaches associations have

recommended enhanced penalties for violations related to recruiting contact, coaching limitations, use

of impermissible recruiting aids, and game‐day simulations.

Athletic Director Reports

Mr. Castiglione provided reports at each meeting updating the Council on the Department’s activities.

This reflects his commitment to keeping the Council fully informed to the extent possible and working

closely with each committee chair regarding emerging issues.

He informed the Council that the number of requests under the Freedom of Information Act related to

athletics continues to increase each year.

Mr. Castiglione reviewed with the Council matters related to Conference realignment and that the

University is working on ways to strengthen the relationship among the remaining 10 members. He

stated that the Big 12 Conference has engaged a firm to assist in branding and considering the future

and ways to elevate this league. He also advised the Council that a Big 12 Conference priority is

modifying competitive schedules to reflect changes in membership.

Mr. Castiglione informed the Council about the progress of capital projects, noting that in the past year

the projects initiated as a result of the 2000 capital campaign have been completed. He advised the

Council that this campaign provided for the renovation and expansion of facilities for each of the sports

the Department sponsors and briefly reviewed with the Council the major projects completed as a result

of that campaign. He advised the Council of the status of the facilities planning for the rowing program.

He discussed with the Council plans for construction of new residents halls which will house both

student athletes and nonstudent athletes, noting that the new complex will be located on the south side

of Lindsey on land the Department will buy back from the University. The targeted complete date is

2013.

Mr. Castiglione developed a Distinguished Honor Policy establishing standards for honoring the jerseys

of former Oklahoma student‐athletes. For sports that do not use numbers, the student‐athlete’s name

may be displayed in the specific venue. The Council reviewed the document in order to provide him

with guidance and policy recommendations prior to its adoption.

Mr. Castiglione reported that the balance of working capital loan was paid off by the Department off

during FY 2011, eleven years ahead of schedule.

Faculty Athletic Representative Reports

Professor Dillon provided the Council with updates on Big 12 and NCAA activities at each meeting. She

reviewed the NCAA’s athletic certification process and the Council’s role in oversight of that effort. She

summarized the governance process at the Conference and Association levels and advised the members

that the Council is a key element in maintaining institutional control required by virtue of the

University’s membership in the NCAA.

She provided a summary of several national issues discussed at the recent meeting of the NCAA

Championships Cabinet including a recommendation to place microphones on coaches during games

and requested feedback from the Council on this issue. She also discussed issues related to Division I

women’s basketball programs and recent concerns about declining trends in the Academic Performance

Rate of this sport. She advised the Council that the Big 12 FAR Council has been tracking our conference

women’s basketball programs noting that these are generally making good progress with respect to the

academic performance. She summarized some of the findings from the most recent NCAA Goals and

Score survey which studies factors related to student‐athlete quality of life. She advised the Council that

coaches in the sports of men’s and women’s basketball are requesting rules changes which would allow

coaches to require summer practice for student‐athletes.

Professor Dillon invited Professor Josephine Potuto (University of Nebraska FAR) to meet with the

Council. Professor Potuto has served for many years on the DI Committee on Infractions. She discussed

key trends in major infractions, the concept of strict liability, and recent infractions cases in which she

has participated.

Professor Dillon reported on the annual Big 12 Leadership Summit hosted by OU in June 2011. This

provided an opportunity to showcase the University.

Student‐Athlete Advisory Committee Reports

Ms. Smith provided a series of updates describing projects of the Student‐Athlete Advisory Committee,

and the community service opportunities for athletes. She reported the 2011 Student‐Athlete Talent

Show was held on April 18 with proceeds benefiting the OUHSC Children’s Hospital and the Student‐

Athlete Scholarship fund. The event was successful with half of the proceeds going to benefit Children’s

Hospital.

Student Athlete Health and Safety Reports

Mr. Naifeh (Executive Associate Athletic Director) reviewed with the Council the University of Oklahoma

policies and practices related to student‐athlete travel to include both air and ground transportation.

He advised the Council that University guidelines exceed the NCAA Best Practices Guidelines for travel

and described the process for selecting and monitoring travel safety. He also noted that the policies

include all forms of transportation including use of vehicles, vans and rental cars and advised the Council

that the Department strictly regulates who is authorized to provide transportation on these trips.

Mr. Naifeh reported that all travel policies and travel related contracts are reviewed by the Board of

Regents.

Mr. Anderson (Head Trainer) discussed the Department’s sports medicine program and services and

identified key issues of national concern including off season conditioning, concussions and sickle cell

testing. He discussed key related legislative initiatives related to concussion management and sickle cell

testing and briefed the Council regarding related educational efforts.

Mr. Anderson described the Department’s policy for the provision of medical insurance for student-

athletes, noting that scholarship student‐athletes are covered by institutional insurance as secondary

coverage for sports related injuries only. He noted that non‐scholarship student‐athletes are required

to demonstrate proof of insurance prior to athletic participation and may be obligated for their own

medical expense respecting injury/illness unless otherwise determined by the Athletics Director. Mr.

Anderson described the medical related services that are provided by the Department, such as

rehabilitation at no cost to student‐athletes. Mr. Castiglione stated that the University purchases a

policy to cover events or situations that are not covered by other insurance and also noted that certain

medical coverage is provided for student‐athletes without health insurance who have conditions not

identified prior to the time that they receive medical care.

2011‐12 Officers

Professor Johnson will serve as Athletics Council chair. Professor Kimball will serve as Chair Elect and become chair in 2012‐13.

cc: President David L. Boren

Joseph R. Castiglione, Sr. (Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics Programs and Director of Athletics)

M. Dewayne Andrews, M.D. (Senior Vice President and Provost, Health Sciences Center)

Chris A. Purcell (Vice President for University Governance)

Nancy L. Mergler, Ph.D. (Senior Vice President and Provost, Norman Campus)

Nicholas S. Hathaway (Executive Vice President and Vice President of Administration and Finance)

Clark A. Stroud (University Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students, Norman)

Deborah Lockwood, M.D. (Health Sciences Center Faculty Senate)

LeRoy Blank, Ph.D. (Norman Campus Faculty Senate)

Connie Dillon, Ph.D. (Faculty Athletic Representative)

BUDGET Council (norman)

2010-11 Annual Report

Submitted by Michael Bemben, Chair

I. Budget Council members for FY11 (Fall 2010/Spring 2011) were as follows:

Ex-officio, nonvoting members:

Nick Hathaway, Vice President, Admin. & Executive Affairs – nhathaway@ou.edu, 325-3916

Nancy Mergler, Senior Vice President and Provost – nmergler@ou.edu, 325-3221

Faculty Senate Appointees (3 year appointments):

John Albert, Mathematics (2009-2012) – jalbert@ou.edu, 325-3782

Mike Bemben-Chair, Health and Exercise Science (2009-2012) – mgbemben@ou.edu, 325-2717

Susan Hahn, University Libraries (2010-2013) – shahn@ou.edu, 325-4231

Susan Vehik, Anthropology (2008-2011) – svehik@ou.edu, 325-4506

Staff Senate Appointees (3 year appointments):

Elizabeth Gatewood, Printing, Mailing, & Document Ser. (2010-2013) – egatewood@ou.edu, 325-4176

Elaine Masters, College of Educ. – Dean’s Office (2008-2011) – emasters@ou.edu, 325-2221

UOSA Appointments (1 year appointment): None

Presidential Appointments (2 faculty, 1 staff for 3 year appointment and 1 student for 1 year term):

Marjorie Callahan, Architecture (2010-2013) – mcallahan@ou.edu, 325-3866

Craig Hayes, Exec. Director, Recruitment Services (2010-2013) – rchayes@ou.edu, 325-2151

Andrew Strout, Art (on sabbatical-Fall2010) (2008-2011) – alstrout@ou.edu, 325-4094

No student

II. Budget Council Meeting Schedule for FY11 (Fall 2010/Spring 2011) was as follows:

Mon. Aug. 23 – Linda Anderson – Director OU Budget Office

Mark Jones – Associate Director OU Budget Office

Mon. Sept. 20 – Glen Johnson – Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer for the Oklahoma

State System of Higher Education

Mon. Oct. 18 –Byron Millsap – Associate Vice President for Administration and Finance

Mike Moorman – Director, Architecture and Engineering Services

Mon. Nov. 15 – Danny Hilliard – Vice President for Governmental Relations

Nick Hathaway – Executive Vice President and Vice President of Administrative

and Finance

Mon. Dec. 20 – Joe Castiglione – Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics Programs and

Director of Athletics

Chris Kuwitzky – Associate Vice President for Administration and Finance and

Chief Financial Officer

Mon. Jan. 17 – no meeting, MLK Holiday

Mon. Feb 21 – Julius Hilburn – Associate Vice President for Human Resources

Mon. March 21 – Kelvin Droegemeier – Vice President for Research

Mon. April 18 – Dan Pullin – Vice President for Strategic Planning and Economic Development

Tripp Hall – Vice President for University Development

May 16 – Danny Hilliard - Vice President for Governmental Relations

III. Summary of each Budget Council Meeting

August

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm. Each committee member introduced themselves.

Guest Speakers – Linda Anderson – Director OU Budget Office and Mark Jones – Associate Director OU Budget Office

Linda Anderson was not able to attend the meeting but Mark Jones provided and explained a number of handouts that included: State General Revenue Fund Sources; a press release from the States Treasurer’s Office; General Revenue Comparisons with the prior year; Oklahoma Appropriation Changes between FY 1985 and FY 2010; the components of the Total Operating Revenue Budget; and the components of the Educational and General Revenue Budget. Mark also provided two additional handouts that included a glossary of terms from the Budget Office and 101 Smart Revenue Generators (and Money-saving Ideas).

The committee then reviewed the published ‘Charge and Purpose’ for the Budget Council which then lead to a brief discussion. It was decided that since part of the ‘charge’ is to interact with the various VP’s on campus there was a review of the upcoming speakers for the next two semesters.

Council members were then given a copy of last year’s Council report which was given to President Boren and were asked to read the report for a historical perspective of the work that was done by last year’s Council.

The Council then reviewed the ‘Budget Guiding Principles’ that were approved by the Faculty Senate during the Spring 2010 semester. The Principles related to the possible decreases in the OU contribution to the faculty retirement plan stemming from last year’s budget shortfall and the relationship between long term plans and short term budgetary actions. The Principles included the following statements: 1. Active participation of the Budget Council in all institutional budgetary processes; 2. Separate consideration processes for long-term and short-term budgetary issues; and 3. Certain values should take precedence in situations where reductions are inevitable.

There was then a brief discussion of the budget overview and the University of Oklahoma FY11 budget needs that were drafted by the Budget Office and presented by President Boren during a meeting last semester at the student Union that addressed the projected budget shortfalls and the possible tuition and fee increases for FY11.

The Chair reported to the Council, that a meeting with the Faculty Senate Chairs (Aimee Franklin and LeRoy Blank) and representatives from Central Administration (Nick Hathaway, Nancy Mergler, Linda Anderson, and Chris Kuwitzky) took place on Monday August 16^th. The results from that meeting confirmed the need for the Budget Council to remain as an active council and to note the important role that the council plays in the budgetary process of the university.

The Council discussed a possible topic that could be explored by smaller groups of council members and incorporated into the final Budget Council Report that will be presented to President Boren at the end of the fiscal year. The general topic discussed was “Sources of Revenue for the University” and the following areas of interest were mentioned: How can we enhance the current sources of revenue? How do we find new sources of revenue? What are the threats to current revenue sources? What will be the long-term and short-term structuring of revenue if reallocation of resources becomes necessary? Will the mission of the University change if there is a significant reallocation of resources?

Council members were asked to contemplate these possible discussion areas and smaller groups of the council will be organized into different work areas based on personal interests. Summaries for each of the areas will be worked on over the course of both semesters with reports by the various subcommittees in the spring semester (See end of the report).

Mark Jones indicated that he would be able to help the council members interpret the budget report at the next meeting following the presentation from Chancellor Johnson. A copy of the current budget will be brought to the meeting and members will be able to ask questions.

Adjournment occurred at about 4:45pm.

September

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm and the minutes from the August 23^rd meeting were approved as submitted.

Guest Speaker – Glen Johnson, Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer for the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education

Chancellor Johnson stated that the timing for his visit was good considering the Regents current preparation for the February legislative session and the State’s upcoming budget challenges. On the good side of things, enrollment in Higher Education is up and people are beginning to realize that university degrees are good for the Oklahoma workforce. Although the State budget is down, education remains a priority, however, over the last 30 years the allocation of State money to Higher Education is declining (1980 – 18.6%, 1990’s – 14.9%, current – 15.2%). He also reported that the percentage of Higher Education costs that were paid with State appropriations is declining. Twenty years ago, about 75.3% of college costs were paid by the State, now about 44.8% with the rest coming from students, parents, financial aid, etc. Why this has changes is due to many reasons but primarily the dramatic increases in the cost of health care, increased cost of corrections (Oklahoma is Tough on Crime), and the loss of stimulus monies (FY10 – $68M, FY11 – $59.8M, FY12 – $0). The impact of this change in stimulus monies to the Norman Campus will be about 10M. Challenges that remain even though money for Higher Education is down is the fact the national average for those with higher education degrees is about 27.2% and only 22.2% in Oklahoma.

Some recent successes for Higher Education in the State include:

a. Bond Issue for 100M for the Endowed Chairs program. 21/25 OK campuses participated. There are 919 state endowed Chairs with 440 at OU. Still a significant backlog of funding needed for Endowed Chair positions worth about $207M.

b. 3 months ago, Oklahoma was only1 of 21 states involved in the “Complete College America” program which is privately funded by the Carnegie Foundation, Gates Foundation, Ford Foundation, Kellogg Foundation, and Lumina.

c. Cost savings programs at institutions of Higher Education totaled about 73M between

2009-2011. Most savings in energy issues (wind power), some institutions went to 4 days a week work weeks, some early retirement programs. Most of the savings were in the following areas: retirement/benefits – $20.7M, energy – $20.3M, salaries – $15.1M.

d. Degrees earned increased by 27.4% over the last 10 years in Oklahoma Higher Education.

Still significant issues remain:

a. Significant backlog in the Endowed Chairs program of about $200 M

b. Need a better link to business leadership in communities

c. We will need to continue to cost costs

d. If Proposition 744 passes it is estimated at by year 3 there will be a 25% reduction in State funding to Higher Education

Mark and Linda provided 3 handouts and explained how to interpret the OU budget printouts. The handouts included the Budget Detail page (E&G), the Summary Listing of Commitments vs. Budget, and the Position Control Report. Linda also explained the overall general process of Carry-Forward monies at the University level and how this is generally handled at the College level. Linda also mentioned that August State revenues are up slightly from last year and the yearly revenue looks promising. Mark Jones and Linda Anderson said they would be able to provide monthly updates of the State revenue picture.

The Council members began to contemplate a number of different approaches that deal with sources of revenue for the University that will eventually be incorporated into the final Budget Council Report that will be presented to President Boren at the end of the fiscal year. The general topic discussed was, “Sources of Revenue for the University”. Topics could include some or all of the following discussion areas and those interested in working on these topics were as follows: How can we enhance the current sources of revenue? How do we find new sources of revenue? What are the threats to current revenue sources? What will be the long-term and short-term structuring of revenue if reallocation of resources becomes necessary? Will the mission of the University change if there is a significant reallocation of resources?

The meeting adjourned at about 4:50 pm.

October

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm and the minutes from the September 20^th meeting were approved as submitted.

Guest Speakers – Mike Moorman – Director, Architecture and Engineering Services

Byron Millsap – Associate VP for Administration and Finance - Purchasing

One of our regularly scheduled speakers, Chris Kuwitzky was unable to attend the meeting.

Mike Moorman provided a detailed description of projects under construction, projects in active planning, and projects pending, as of 06/30/10, and projects completed FY 96 to FY 10. Most questions that dealt with funding issues related to these projects were not addressed by Mike and were referred to Chris Kuwitzky for those details. An e-mail has been sent to Chris to address those questions and Chris has been invited to re-schedule his visit for the December meeting.

Burr Millsap provided some information on purchasing strategies and philosophies that are being used to try and save money and resources. A couple of issues came up that related to multiple year equipment warranties that at present, cannot be negotiated, since they extend past 1 year, and issues related to hotels not associated with conferences that are cheaper than conference hotels, not being able to be used for travel reimbursements. He said that there might be room for some change in these two items, often depending on how the wording for agreements is presented.

Mark Jones provided a brief update on State revenues and he indicated that the first 3 months were about $45M above estimates (or about $15M per month). The major problem for FY12 is still the loss of about 1 Billion in stimulus monies that will need to be addressed and if the State revenue continues above expectations at the current rate of $15M per month (or $15M x 12 month = $180M), there would still be a significant short fall for the University.

The meeting adjourned at about 5:20 pm

November

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm and the minutes from the October 18^th meeting were approved as submitted.

Guest Speakers – Danny Hilliard – Vice President for Governmental Relations

Nick Hathaway – Executive Vice President and VP of Administrative & Finance

Following both presentations, questions and discussion took place that focused on how the changes in the State’s legislative make-up might impact allocations for higher education and how new colleges, programs, and buildings morph into the universities E&G budget even if they were initiated by private gifts. Part of new or unexpected expenses is sometimes addressed with one time funds that could include tuition over estimates and fringes from vacant positions, etc.

Update on the State Revenue – Mark Jones and Linda Anderson provided a handout that indicated that State revenues were about 2.5% above the prior year and about 4% above what was estimated.

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 pm.

December

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm and the minutes from the November 15^th meeting were approved as submitted.

Guest Speakers – Joe Castiglione – VP for Intercollegiate Athletics Programs & Director of Athletics

Chris Kuwitzky – Assoc. VP for Administration and Finance & Chief Financial Officer

Joe Castiglione

Joe reported that the Athletic budget has grown significantly in the past 10-12 years. All facilities are being funded by private gifts. There are now 21 sports (11 women sports) and about 600 student athletes and 226 full time employees. The operating budget for the current year is about $86M and is totally self sustaining (Budgets in the Big 12 range from around $130M for Texas to about $50M. OU is 4^th or 5^th in budget size). The Athletic program receives no State appropriations, no student fees and no institutional money. The Athletic Department will finish paying off the debt incurred from the 1990’s by the end of this year (about 10 years earlier than originally anticipated).

The Athletic Department now subsidizes the OU budget by about $5M in direct support and closer to $7M in total per year. The OU Athletic Department serves as a model for other programs around the country since it is one of the very few (5-6) self sustaining programs with a yearly balanced budget.

There has been about $225M in facility upgrades that is being managed by the Capital Debt program. When asked if the current model is sustainable, Joe indicated that they have developed a risk analyses system to keep a close check on their situation in order to remain self sustaining. They have increased revenues by the following strategies: ticket sales, fund raising, licensing, media rights, etc. Most revenues come to the program in April, May, and June, just prior to setting the new fiscal year Budget (July 1). Income has been consistent and may have improved a bit even during the last 2 difficult years.

Athletics now uses OU for all of its concessions (better partnership with the institution). Athletics owns the interlocking OU brand from a licensing perspective. Next significant project is student athlete housing (Jenkins and Lindsey area) which will include 380 new beds. Estimated that it will be ready in the Fall of 2013. Other new projects include the addition of Women’s Rowing and new facilities in empty space at the Football stadium. There are also planned upgrades for the Field House.

Joe handed out the 2009-2010 OU Athletics Department Annual Report.

Chris Kuwitzky

Chris reported that the budget for the new Athletic dorms required land acquisitions of about $5.5M and the total project is estimated at about $75M. About $45-50M is projected in private gifts and the University will bond the rest of the project.

Chris reported that he is very grateful that the OU Athletic Budget and financial operations are totally transparent, very different form how things were managed prior to Joe’s appointment. There is oversight of the financial program at OU by Standard and Poor’s and Fitch and the University has established a very conservative debt service coverage ratio of 1.25 (income/debt) (most programs are around 1.1).

Once a capital project is identified, there are 4 sources of revenue:

1. Private gifts

2. General revenue Bonds – University issued

3. State Money through State bonds (very minimal every 8-10 years)

4. One time discretionary University reserve funds

Checks on the financial program at OU are carried out by a third party revue (Ernst and Young) and two separate reports. The first is an IRS requirement and the second is an internal report to the Board of Regents which focuses on key ratios for the Institution.

Mark and Linda reported that State revenues are down for November but that the State is about 6% above last year’s income.

The meeting adjourned at 5:15 pm

January

No meeting MLK Holiday

February

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm and the minutes from the December November 20^th meeting were approved as submitted.

Guest Speakers – Julius Hilburn – Associate Vice President for Human Resources

Nick Kelly – Benefits

Medical and dental costs for current active employees increased from $32M in 2005 to $64M in 2010 and are expected to increase to $69M in 2011 (for all 3 OU campuses). Most likely dues to more people needing health care as the general population ages and the increased cost of delivering health care. There are similar trends at the national level.

Retiree medical costs were $4.2M in 2005 and have increased to $9.6M in 2010 since most are past age 65 years. In 2011, OU negotiated significant reductions in post age 65 retirees cost for health insurance. This year HMO costs increased 11% from last year and PPO increased about 4%. It is expected that in 2012, HMO option will be more expensive than the PPO option. OU will need to consider which direction to take in the future, perhaps dropping the HMO option? The 3 year rate guarantee with BC/BS expires at the end of 2011. OU is reluctant to go to market and make a change for 2012. Instead hope to work with BC/BS to explore options for staying with them for 2012.

Health insurance is paid for OU employees at a 95% rate but dependents only at 50%.

Benefits for retirees – 2008 there was a program change for those hired after 2008 not eligible for subsidized medical benefit. OU pays 100% of the Medicare supplement. This will decrease most likely in the future based on years to retirement and years of service. Currently there has been no discussion to change the university defined contribution for retirement.

Linda Anderson provided a handout regarding the state budget for January. The income was 5.1% higher for the same month a year ago and was 19.5% higher for the year compared to last year.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 pm.

March

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm and the minutes from the February 21^st meeting were approved as submitted.

Guest Speaker – Kelvin Droegemeier – Vice President for Research

Kelvin provided a handout titled, “Update on OU Research” and then expanded on the information contained in the handout. Briefly, Kelvin mentioned that he began his position about 14 or 15 months ago and had to deal with a substantial debt/deficit. Strategic Initiatives that were started in 2003 with 30 new hires cost about $9.5M (with start-ups). Research expenditures to date from these hires are about $34M with $9M in IDC (covering the initial investment). Indirect Costs to the University are approximately $16.5M per year.

The SRTC Bond Debt Service that the VP for Research had to deal with will move to Central Administration in about 5 years. This will ease some of the financial burden for the VPR. He also highlighted Aspire 2020 – Culture, Competitiveness, and Engagement. Also the new programs that are being developed with Aspire 2020 such as the faculty Research Challenge Grant Program, Research Liaisons Program, USO Re-Competition, Center for Applied R&D, and Faculty Incentives (all of which are described in detail on the new VPR web site). The VPR indicated how he and his office are communicating with Administration, faculty, Councils, Dean’s, etc. Also where Research Expenditures were allocated and how some sectors (like Defense and NASA funding) have been woefully low.

New challenges for the VPR include the loss of GA’s from internal; budget cuts; new faculty start-up costs; faculty retention programs; and IDC recovery. Finally he presented a number of priorities for 2011.

Linda Anderson provided a handout regarding the February Revenue Collections from the state, which were higher than expected. The State Board of Equalization certified approximately a 2.0% increase in the State budget from June to February.

The meeting was adjourned at about 5:10 pm.

April

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm and the minutes from the March 21^st meeting were approved as submitted.

Guest Speakers – Dan Pullin – Vice President for Strategic Planning & Economic Development

Tripp Hall – Vice President for University Development

The speakers both provided PowerPoint presentations.

Linda mentioned that there was nothing new to report until the State decides on a final budget for the University.

It was determined that Susan Hahn would be the new Chairperson for the next fiscal year.

The meeting was adjourned at about 4:45 pm.

May

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm and the minutes from the April 18^th meeting were approved as submitted.

Guest Speaker – Danny Hilliard – Vice President for Governmental Relations

The speaker provided a copy of the FY 12 Budget for the State of Oklahoma. The budget passed the House and was now in the Senate. It was expected to pass perhaps by May 17^th. Basically, Higher Education will experience a 5.8% decrease (about $58M) in support from the State from FY11. However, there may be a one-time supplemental to the budget of about $21.4M from taxes that was captured by the Senate for FY12 rather than going to the ‘Rainy Day fund’. Of this, about $10M would go to Higher Education, $10M to Common Education, and $1.4M to Career Tech which would then lower the percentage decline to Higher Education to about 4.8% rather than the initial 5.8%.

Linda reported that there was no news with respect to State revenues. Linda mentioned that the University was still expecting a 2% across the board raise for faculty and staff (with a $1,000 minimum raise) with some additional monies that might be available to address issues of compression and inversion.

There was some discussion about the role of Budget Council and the need for the Budget Council to formally thank the Budget Office (Linda Anderson and Mark Jones) and Danny Hilliard for the hard work that they do, often with little recognition.

The meeting was adjourned at about 4:30 pm.

-----------------------------------

Budget Council 2010-2011

Discussion Topic

“Sources of Revenue for the University”

Questions:

1. How can we enhance the current sources of revenue?

2. How do we find new sources of revenue?

3. What are the threats to current revenue sources?

4. What will be the long-term and short-term structuring of revenue if reallocation of resources

becomes necessary?

5. Will the mission of the University change if there is a significant reallocation of resources?

________________________________________________________________________

1. Question: How can we enhance the current sources of revenue?

A. Current Revenue: Student Tuition, Fees & Activity Income

--------“Enhance the Revenue”

BASIC

Enlarge our pool/student count

STOCK UP

Computer and handouts that can get student families started on a great plan for college

PRO-ACTIVE:

Faculty & Student Ambassadors to High Schools

Pre-collegiate Summer Programs/Bring them here from all over the world

Special Programs---Classes with the President/Famous Alums

VISIONARY

Improving our future by degrees

Seek the unconventional student: addressing tough issues

Examples might include: prisons, homeless shelters, distressed housing, and comeback neighborhoods

MOST POPULAR

Seek to be ahead of the curve…’think tank’ sessions

Offer evening IT/Technology Courses to Professionals

On-line learning

AFFORDABILITY

Offer incentives if they stay four years with top grades/like the Army?

SCHOLARSHIP

Offer the best students the opportunity to work at donor’s firms; alum network

COST SAVINGS/EFFICIENCIES

Full year use (include summer semesters)

INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

Offer variety of payback periods

Stay in Oklahoma/-into our Smaller Communities

B. Current Revenue: Alumnae Giving/Pledge & Unpledged Giving/Designated Gifts

--------“Enhance the Revenue”

PLEDGE GIVING

Every graduate gives a contribution at graduation to set the habit/rigor of giving

UNPLEDGED GIVING

Reach higher and in more places globally then from previous years out

MISCELLENEOUS

Interest/Royalties

OU Foundation Distribution

Television Campaign Giving

Increase the number of college graduates

Long-term strategic planning

Educate Alums to give back

C. Current Revenue: Facilities Income

--------“Enhance the Revenue”

FLEXIBILITY

Flexibility in our Facility Offerings (rent out at off season/alternative hours)

MODEL SHOPS (across campus: use of our various department shops)

Model Shop Sharing? 15-20 separate on campus at this time

Digital Age: share various Supervisors’ strengths

Offer Continuing Education to community

Revenue (College of Architecture takes physical plants fallen trees, puts them in the solar kiln to dry (built by students), and sells the wood to the students for their projects.

Community charged for use of digital equipment time $

Replant walnut groves with seeds of our own trees

SHARED/INTERTWINING INNER CAMPUS

Expanding the customer base:

Childcare + Senior Citizen/Older returning Alum + Community Commons +Conference Center + Multi-Faith

24 HOUR

Kitchen Facilities to Rent

PATTERNS

Building Patterns

Purchasing (suggested contributors) to a better university (their research centers)

With naming rights

Reduction in electrical consumption

Greatest change to construction industry for sustainability:

Introduction of electrical/power consumed (i.e.: lights turn off when door closes)

APPROACH

Approaches to sustainability:

Reduce Consumption: Put in Professor James Patterson’s energy conservation skylights

Reduce Impact of Providing Services:

Efficiency in our redundant Model Shop Equipments

Innovation (new methods): new construction techniques in our new buildings

ALTERNATIVE STANCE/PHILOSOPHY

Retail on the street

*Theory of Street Vendors = Street Vitality

Coffee/Donut Income (Cupcakes; In-house pizza)

D. Current Revenue: State Allocations

--------“Enhance the Revenue”

REFORM

Strengthen financial support for Oklahoma college students

Support Oklahoma’s Promise/Uniqueness

LESS MANAGEMENT

Greater Speed under management

Strategic Sourcing

Cooperative Purchasing

E. Current Revenue: Research

--------“Enhance the Revenue”

FOCUS ON THE STATE

Broaden economic development activities in the State

Cyclical

Reform

For innovative studies, include ‘repair’ staff

Experiment on our own facilities

Encourage in-house research on our own facilities

Especially for Energy Conservation

Encourage in-house research on our own technology

For Technology Conversion

________________________________________________________________________

2. Question: How do we find new sources of revenue?

Revenue Generating Ideas

Expansion of transfer recruitment effort. The investment in one transfer recruiter to work the Texas market (primarily the DFW-area community colleges and secondarily the Houston-area community colleges) would generate additional revenue via the increase in non-resident enrollments.

Expansion of out-of-state, direct-from-high-school recruitment effort. Investing in part- or full-time recruiters in key, proven out-of-state markets would generate additional revenue via the increase in non-resident enrollments. As a side benefit, the improved yield on students from key out-of-state markets could also improve the quality of each freshman class as we admit and enroll even more qualified high school seniors from these new areas and admit fewer, lesser quality students from our wait list.

Charging Stations. (Currently there isn’t available services for students (faculty/staff as well) with electric vehicles to charge their vehicles.

Federal Express/UPS delivery. OSU receives a substantial amount of income for delivering Federal Express/UPS packages and having one location for mailing them out. This would also cut down on “service” vehicles in and around the heart of the university. Also, these companies deliver packages to students living in the dorms – this would keep additional non-residents out of the buildings.

Oil or Natural gas well. This could be located on any outlying property of OU’s South or North Campus. There would be up front costs associated but would generate a continuous revenue stream thereafter.

Utilizing of the OU air fleet to transport faculty & staff to nearby places such as Tulsa, Dallas, Houston, Albuquerque, Little Rock to save on airfare costs when flights must go through larger airports or connect to airports for international service. OU could charge a small fee to departments and OU Aviation students could get flight time hours.

Set up and OU Foundation Account similar to the OU Campaign Fund, with donations made on a voluntary basis – OU Rainy Day Fund – with funds earmarked to be used for Deficit Spending. This could be an endowed fund or not, whichever seems more feasible for its intended use.

Services such as a salon for hair/nails in the union. Bring in more services that students are interested in and the rental of the space would bring in a small income or a fee off the services.

Increase Online course offerings. No building space would be required, no additional utility services would be needed and OU still receives the same income from the courses. Possibly offer an incentive to departments per course or number of students attending.

Increase awareness of facilities to aggressively recruit businesses to lease any available spaces on the Research Campus.

Consolidating current OU services.

_________________________________________________________________________

3. Question: What are the threats to current revenue sources?

OU budget and revenue sources. OU's Educational and General (E&G) budget, which includes expenditures for instruction, research, and public service, is subdivided into two parts, according to what the sources of revenue are. E&G part I, the primary budget, is funded mostly by state appropriations and tuition and fees. In the last two years (FY10 and FY11) it has also included federal stimulus money. E&G part II, the sponsored budget, is funded mostly by federal awards & grants, contracts with the federal government, state agencies, & private entities.

Two other important OU budgets are the capital budget, for new construction, major repairs and renovations, and major items of equipment; and the auxiliary enterprises budget, for services tangential to the educational process, such as housing and food services. The capital budget is funded from revenue bond proceeds, special appropriations, dedicated monies (from a trust held by a state agency), and major private gifts. The auxiliary enterprises budget is funded by fees charged to the recipients of the service; thus these services are self-supporting.

Current revenue levels and trends.

State funding:

After a series of increases from FY05 through FY09, state appropriations to Oklahoma public higher education institutions decreased by 7 percent from FY09 to FY11. These decreases were due to state revenue shortfalls. Currently (FY11), about 15 percent of total state government appropriations go to higher education. This percentage, which has stayed constant for most of the years since 1980, is down from a figure of 18.6 percent in 1980; the decrease being due mainly to the state having to devote more appropriations to health care and the department of corrections.

To go along with the relative decrease in state appropriations in the past thirty years, there has been a relative decrease in the proportion of OU's revenue that comes from state appropriations. In 1985. State appropriations formed 39 percent of the OU Norman campus total operating revenue budget (dollar amount of $63 million) and tuition and fees formed 10 percent ($16 million). By FY11, the proportion of the budget funded by state appropriations had dropped to 19 percent ($144 million), and the proportion from tuition and fees had risen to 28 percent ($217 million). Other components of the total operating revenue budget (auxiliary/agency, grants and contracts) have maintained a roughly constant share of total revenue over this time span.

Tuition and fees:

The total number of students enrolled in Oklahoma higher education hit an all-time high of 187,000 in fall 2009, up about 10,000 or 6 percent from fall 2008. The proportion of Oklahoma high school students going directly to college after graduation was 52.8 percent in 2007--08, up one percentage point from the previous year.

At OU, annual enrollments have been holding steady or slightly declining for the past several years. Fall semester enrollment on the Norman campus peaked at 22,328 in 2004, and was at 21,390 in 2010. Annual retention rates increased slightly from 1998--99 to 2007-08 at Oklahoma research universities, from 90 percent to 91 percent; while six-year graduation rates increased from 53 percent to 68 percent.

Currently about 70 percent of OU students pay in-state tuition, and 30 percent pay out-of-state tuition, with the result that the two groups contribute roughly equal amounts of revenue.

OU had a 9 percent tuition and fee increase in 2007-08 over the previous academic year, another increase of 9 percent in 2008-09, no increase for the 2009-10 academic year, and a small increase (4.5 percent) in 2009-10.

Federal stimulus funds:

Oklahoma public colleges and universities received $68 million in federal stimulus money in FY 2010, and $60 million in stimulus money in FY 2011. Of this FY11 amount, OU's Norman campus received $19 million and the OU Health Sciences Center received $13 million, while OU Law and OU Tulsa got another $2 million combined. There will be no stimulus money from FY 2012 onwards.

Private gifts, endowment, and bond proceeds:

Gifts to the University are received and managed for its benefit by a separate not-for-profit corporation, the University of Oklahoma Foundation.

On June 30, 2009, the Foundation had $776 million in assets, including investments, pledges receivable, and cash. This represented a decrease in net assets of $160 million from the previous year, $100 million of this decrease taking the form of contributions to the University. The other $60 million of the decrease was mainly attributable to the fact that losses on investments (about $160 million) outpaced contributions (about $100 million).

The picture for the following year was brighter, however. By June 30, 2010, the Foundation’s assets had risen to $806 million, while at the same time contributing about $110 million to the University. This was made possible on the strength of $124 million in contributions and $78 million in income on investments.

Since 1988, Oklahoma has a public-private funding program for endowed chairs, in which private donations are matched by the state. This has resulted in over 900 new endowed chair accounts since the beginning of the program. By 2008, however, private donations outstripped state matching by $360 million, and these unmatched donations were being held in abeyance until matching funds could be found by the state. In 2009 the state legislature authorized a $100 million bond issue to help reduce this backlog, and put a moratorium on further matching until the remaining commitments were met. Currently there are about 200 active accounts on the OU Norman campus, worth a little over $100 million, and another 200 at OUHSC. Among the accounts in the backlog awaiting the next bond issue, there are 148 at the OU campus, with a value of $22 million.

Although in the distant past most University buildings were funded by state bond issues, now very little construction is funded this way. Rather, the expectation is that money for future capital projects will come primarily from OU bond proceeds and private gifts. Based on the history of state support for capital projects, we should not expect capital support from the state for at least the next five years.

Threats to current revenue sources.

State appropriations:

The most visible threat to revenue in the past couple of years has been the state financial situation, which affects how much the state appropriates to higher education.

The state's general revenue fund had the following main sources (as of FY09): sales tax $2 billion (31 percent of total revenue), personal income tax $2.2 billion (36 percent); corporate income tax $337 million (5 percent); gross production tax (mining, oil, natural gas) $723 million (11 percent); and estate and other taxes $793 million (12 percent). (By comparison, the state's lottery revenue in FY09 was $70 million, of which $25 million was appropriated to higher education, for construction, renovation and repairs.) In FY10 the state's revenues decreased dramatically. The gross production tax revenue decreased by $283 million, personal income tax revenue by $403 million, and sales tax revenue by $131 million.

In February 2011, things were looking up. Personal and corporate income tax collection was 141 percent higher than the same month last year, and sales tax collections were 11 percent above last year's. Despite high oil prices, however, the gross production tax revenue was down 4.5 percent over last year's because of low natural gas prices.

The feeling is that things will be even better in FY12, yet if the lost federal stimulus money is not replaced by some other revenue, the expected increases in state appropriations would still not be enough to bring us back up to the level of previous years --- even when combined with another 5 percent tuition increase. In fact, it would take a several years of large (9 to 10 percent) tuition increases for OU's revenue to return to previous levels.

An interesting aspect of the political situation is that almost all of the state government officials who will be dealing with higher education in coming years are new faces, either newly elected or newly appointed since fall 2010. Only time will tell what effect this will have.

Tuition and fees:

An important question is what will happen in the future to the number of students graduating from Oklahoma high school students. This seems to be rather difficult to estimate, but one source (The Chronicle for Higher Education's Almanac of Higher Education, 2010) projects a 6 percent increase in Oklahoma high school graduates in 2020-21 over 2010-11. This compares to a 3 percent increase in the US overall and large decreases in northeastern states. Texas is projected for a 17 percent increase, and Arizona a 26 percent increase.

Public perception of OU plays a big role in students’ decisions on whether to enroll here. It is important that the University not only maintain positive momentum in its research and teaching missions, but also succeed in keeping a positive public image. This is especially important in attracting out-of-state student enrollment, since nonresident students' knowledge of OU is largely determined by what they read in the papers. In particular, we want to continue to make OU an attractive option to students from Texas, who currently comprise two-thirds of OU's out-of-state students. UT Austin and Texas A&M can only admit so many students, and OU is a natural alternative for Texan students who want to attend a comprehensive research University.

Besides student demographics, other factors which could have an effect on future enrollments, but which are even more difficult to predict, are changes in the economy and possible military deployments.

Also important is the issue of whether or how much it is advisable to raise tuition, and in whom the authority to raise tuition will reside. In 2003, state legislators granted the state regents the authority to set tuition and fees, within prescribed limits, and subject to the requirement of accounting for their decisions to the legislature each year. In each of the past several years, however, there have been bills proposed in the state legislature to remove the tuition-setting authority from the regents and return it to the legislature. Usually these bills have not come to a vote, although in 2007 (the year of a 9 percent raise in tuition and fees) such a bill did pass in the legislature before being vetoed by the governor.

Private gifts, endowment, and bond proceeds:

Bad economic conditions can threaten the University’s endowment income in several ways: by causing a decline in the value of the investments and other assets of the OU Foundation, by making it more difficult for donors to continue to contribute, and by causing difficulties in maintaining liquidity and obtaining financing. Conversely, of course, an improving economy would ameliorate these difficulties.

The state legislature’s endowment matching program, mentioned above, includes a provision stating that if a donor’s contribution is not matched with public funds within three years, then the donor has a right to request a refund of his donation. To date, no donors have requested refunds. However, it is important that the backlog of donations requiring matches continue to be reduced, to provide confidence to donors that their donations will be used in a timely way.

Auxiliary enterprises:

Since auxiliary services are self-supporting, in theory future shortfalls could be covered by raising fees or cutting services. Although it has sometimes happened in the past that the athletics department has run short of money and required financial help from the University, currently the athletic department is actually a source of revenue for the University. This is because 3.2 percent of revenue from athletics and housing goes to support University E&G, in the form of an administrative overhead tax.

_____________________________________________________________________________

4. Question: What will be the long-term and short-term structuring of revenue if reallocation of resources becomes necessary?

I. Long Term Issues: Rapid growth in costs of employee health care coverage

Rapid growth in retirement health care costs

II. Short Term Issues: Any decrease in legislative allocations (may be a long term issue?)

A. University of Oklahoma Norman Campus Annual Operating Budget Sources of Revenue

1. State Appropriations (less than 20% of the Norman Campus Budget)

Percentage of Higher Education Budget Paid with State Appropriations (Chancellor Johnson)

1988 - 75.3%

1990 - 69.3%

2008 - 49.5%

2009 – 44.8%

Higher Education’s Percentage of Total State Appropriations (Chancellor Johnson)

1980 – 18.6%

1985 – 16.1%

1990 – 15.8%

1995 – 14.9%

2000 – 15.6%

2005 – 15.0%

2009 – 15.2%

2. Tuition (about each 1% increase in tuition adds about 750K to revenues)

3. Revolving Funds - Student fees

Sales and services of education departments

Indirect cost reimbursement from sponsored grants

4. Grants and Contracts

5. Agency Accounts - Auxiliary Enterprises – Residence halls, food services, etc.

Other agencies – Student organizations, etc.

Internal Services – Physical Plant, Motor Pool, Printing Services, etc.

(This is not usually included in Revenue for the OU Budget)

B. Other Sources of Revenue (Not usually included in Revenue for the OU Budget)

1. Private Gifts – Only monies for endowed Chairs contributes to the OU Budget

2. General revenue bonds – University Issued – Primarily for Capital Projects

3. State monies through State bonds (very minimal every 8-10 years) – Primarily for Capital Projects

4. One time discretionary University reserve funds

(Not part of the OU Budget but can be used to help absorb a deficit on a one time basis)

C. University of Oklahoma Norman Campus FY11 Increases in Fixed Costs

3.4M – Increases in fringe benefit costs

150K – Space rental

375K – Water fee

119K - Risk management

2.0M – New buildings coming on-line

250K – Building maintenance

750K – IT – banner

2.1M – Additional financial assistance for students

2.7M – Academic Commitments – (enrollment pressure, retention, compression, minimum wage increase – new faculty and new programs)

550K – Faculty promotions

340K – Tutoring/advising services

1.0M – Investments to faculty for generating external funding – 450K Proposal Development Ctr

400K Ctr for Creation of Econ Wealth

~16M Total (This is about the same increase (about 2-3%) each new fiscal year that has to be

accounted for with new revenues)

D. University of Oklahoma Norman Campus Annual Expenditures

Salaries for faculty

Fringes for faculty

Salaries for staff

Fringes for staff

Salaries for administration

Fringes for administration

Salaries for others

Fringes for others

Tuition waivers

Utilities

Approximate Total Annual Revenues for 1985, 2000, and 2011

Total Budget (M) Tuition & Approp Other E&G Grants Agency Internal*

Fees Revolving Service

FY85 $185.1 18.3 (9.9%) 71.5 (38.6%) 10.7 (5.8%) 31.1 (16.8%) 53.5 (28.9%) 48.1

FY00 $397.2 69.5 (17.5%) 119.6 (30.1%) 31.4 (7.9%) 7.9 (19.6%) 98.8 (24.9%) 90.3

FY11 $774.2 204.4 (26.4%) 144.0 (18.6%) 82.1 (10.6%) 40.9 (18.2%) 202.8(26.2%) 144.8

*Internal Service Units derive their funds from other university units through a billing-for-service process (IT, Physical Plant, Printing Services, etc.). Those budgets are not considered a part of the overall operating budget (the $774.2 million) since, in effect, you would be double-counting the funds in their original department, as well as the department providing the service. This classification is prescribed by the National Association of College and University Business Officers and is a national standard. On the other hand, from the Budget Office’s standpoint, those are real budgets with many positions that we have to manage no matter the source of funds.

Revenue for 2011

Total Budget (M) Tuition & Approp Other E&G Grants Agency Internal

Fees Revolving Service

$774.2 $204.4 $144.0 $82.1 $140.9 $202.8 $144.8

26.4% 18.6% 0.6% 18.2% 26.2%

______________________________________

Private Gifts for FY11

$9.3M (OU Foundation)

$6.3M (State Regents Endowments

$15M (One-time Funds (Carry forward)

Private Gifts are a part of the budget. It includes all OU Foundation funds transferred to the OU budget for both endowed chairs and University Development office operations, as well as State Regents’ endowment funds. These monies are usually part of the “Other E&G Revolving” column.

_______________________________________

Expenditures for 2011

Total Budget (M) Faculty Monthly Hourly Fringe Travel Utilities Waivers Other**

Salaries Staff Staff Benefits M&O

$774.2 $125.0 $113.8 $68.9 $89.0 $10.1 $34.8 $34.8 $292.7

16.8% 14.7% 8.9% 11.5% 1.3% 4.5% 4.5% 37.8%

______________________________

51.9%*

*When we look at Educational & General budgets only (academic budgets, Student Affairs, Admin & Finance, etc.) personnel costs are about 70% of the budget. If you look at the total budget, the % goes down to the 51.9% because of all the other units added, such as Athletics and Housing & Food Service that have a much higher percentage of their budgets within non-personnel expenditures because of the type of operations they have.

**This section includes a large variety of things. Supplies, computing equipment and leases, communications, postage, building operations and maintenance, overhead for non-E&G units, and a large category called contractual and other expenses.

E. Possible Options to Compensate for a Deficit in Operational Funds

Efforts to reduce Expenditures

i. Faculty, Staff, Administration

Decrease faculty lines and Decrease adjunct instructors (Hiring Freeze)

(1 or 2 yr delay in filling vacant lines)

(This would affect faculty: Student ratios and decrease research productivity)

(This would increase teaching loads and decrease research productivity)

(This would result in larger class sizes)

Reduce staff numbers

(This would need to outsource services)

Reduce Administration numbers

(Decrease Administration Expenses)

Furloughs

4 day work weeks

Decrease Travel allowances

Decrease purchasing of supplies

ii. Students

Decrease Course Offerings

Decrease graduate student numbers

Decrease Scholarship Offerings

Eliminate Student Workers

iii. Other

Eliminate Professional Service Contracts

Energy Conversion

Energy Conservation

Efforts to Increase Revenue

Increase Tuition and Fees

Increase Enrollment – in state and out of state

__________________________________________________________________________

5. Question: Will the mission of the University change if there is a significant reallocation of resources?

The mission of the University of Oklahoma is to provide the best possible education experience for our students through excellence in teaching, research and creative activity and service to the state and society.

As the Flagship University for the State of Oklahoma, the mission of the University will not change radically if there is a significant reallocation of resources. The mission would shift emphasis perhaps but the primary mission of excellence in teaching will remain. While the university’s mission may have to lessen the emphasis on research and service, a balance not only between programs should be preserved but also among teaching, research and service, contributions to mission attainment are inversely proportional to their margins.

There will likely be an increased emphasis on the pursuit of external research funding. Those dollars not only support research and staff positions but the overhead also helps cover expenses of the general operation of the university. Those expenses are not likely fully covered by the state budget and are also not significantly increased by research activities. This has the danger of dividing university faculty into two groups, one that does research and very little teaching and another that does teaching and less research. Generally this translates into significant disparities in salaries.

Tuition will very likely have to increase significantly. The primary problem attendant to this is that only the wealthy will then be able to afford higher education. This will dilute the numbers of middle class people and the country will return to a two tiered social system similar to pre-World War II. There will be a small, wealthy upper class and a large, poor, lower class. A large lower class with limited education is not conducive to technological development and economic production. While wage-labor may be cheap its productive capabilities are limited and its consumptive potential extremely low.

How these might impact the actual instructional realm could vary. Certainly revenue generating research will be high-tech and so emphasis will be on classes in science and technology (as long as there ultimately is some consumptive potential for products of that research). Likely there will be an increasing demand for classes in fields whose knowledge is of a more applied nature. Social sciences may see demand where the knowledge is of an applied or apply-able nature. Arts and humanities will receive much less emphasis. The scope of education will be narrower and more specialized.

Online instruction may become more important especially in fields outside science and technology. That is, to the extent that there is something resembling a broad, classical education experience it may be delivered online. Electronic communication and instruction may facilitate development of multi-instructor courses that potentially will have greater breadth and depth.

The University needs to carefully consider the financial burden of adding new programs, schools, started with donated monies. 5 years in the future the new program(s) will have to be absorbed into the general budget. Can the University really afford to continually add new programs give the current and continuing financial situation?

Continuing Education Council

2010-11 Annual Report

Submitted by KIRBY GILLILAND, Chair

Members: Kirby Gilliland, Chair, Shannon Bert, Rebecca Cook, Chris Elliot, Stephanie Moore, Molly Murphy, Allison Palmer, Julie Raadschelders, Martha Skeeters, Juanita Vargas.

Ex-officio: Jim Pappas, VP University Outreach; Nancy Mergler, Senior VP & Provost; Kelvin Droegemeier, VP Research.

Transitions: Kirby Gilliland agreed to serve as Chair of the Council for the 2010-2011 academic year.

Revisiting our Purpose: Due to considerable turnover on the Continuing Education Council this past year, we once again began the year by revisiting the CE Council’s Charge to refresh ourselves regarding our responsibilities and roles as an OU Council.

An Overview of Outreach: Prior to the November 23rd meeting, Dr. Gilliland met with Dr. Pappas to construct and review agenda items. In line with “Revisiting our Purpose” above, Dr. Gilliland requested that Dr. Pappas again provide an overview of Outreach organization, scope, and activities.

Introductions to Outreach: This year we initiated a new feature to our Council meetings. Outreach is an exceptionally multi-faceted organization, as are the issues facing it. In an attempt to better familiarize Council members with Outreach, we will endeavor to have a director of an Outreach program provide an introduction to that program at each meeting or have some overview of important pressing issues regarding Outreach. At the fall meeting, Chris Elliot, Director of the Osher Program presented an introduction to that program. Briefly, the Osher Program provides an outreach learning program to senior adult learners in Oklahoma. OU now has about 700 individuals enrolled in the program, which offers about 40 courses per semester. At the spring meeting, we had a presentation of information pertinent to non-traditional doctorate programs (see below).

Non-traditional Doctorate. Non-traditional doctoral degrees have been a continuing topic of discussion for the Council. There has been a large growth in these degrees nationally. Dr. Pappas provided an overview of the current conditions in this arena and it was decided that the Council would review materials on these degree programs and we would consider action during the spring meeting. At our spring meeting the Council viewed an interesting PBS Frontline episode titled “Corporate U,” a documentary on for-profit higher education institutions. Clearly, non-traditional doctoral degrees are proliferating and many of them are being provided by for-profit institutions. The target of these institutions appears to be popular, cost-efficient, and profit-bearing disciplinary areas (Business, Social Science, Health-related, as opposed to infrastructure-intensive disciplines like Engineering or Physical/Life Sciences). The Council generally concluded that this topic warrants broader attention. It was agreed that Dr. Pappas would work with Dr. Gilliland to construct a preliminary proposal for a forum on this topic and that the proposal would be distributed to the Council for consideration and feedback. All interested members of the Council were encouraged to provide any input into the proposal development process they would like. It should be noted that this initial proposal is not intended to be a “prescriptive” draft. Rather, it is intended to be a rough working draft to assist Council members in their thinking regarding the nature and scope of implementing a forum and to accelerate the development of the forum should the Council approve and support it in a more detailed form. The important point is that the CE Council is moving beyond thoughtful exploration and discussion toward proactive initiation on an issue of potential campus interest or even concern.

Outreach Marketing Review: CE Council members reviewed marketing materials developed by Outreach to give wider public exposure to Outreach activities and offerings. This activity focused on commercial advertisements aired on local media sources and presented at football games. Outreach sought Council members’ reaction and feedback on these efforts. In general, the advertisements were met with considerable favor by the Council. The Council overall felt the advertisements were current in their mode and appeal, clever and professional in their construction, and seemingly effective in the overall implementation. Overall, the Council supported this endeavor and looks forward to an evaluation of its effectiveness.

Competence Standards: The Council was given information, published by Dr. Offerman of Capella University, regarding an evaluation hierarchy implemented by Capella University that includes Outcomes, Competencies, and Criteria. This competency-based standard for degrees is being incorporated as a part of their accreditation process. If such a model evolves as part of their accreditation standards, will traditional public and private doctoral programs be faced with adjusting to the for-profit competency-based model in their accreditation processes? The Council also discussed how recent developments might relate to undergraduate programs, graduate programs, and the traditional doctoral degree path? Competencies as a standard of accomplishment may or may not reflect high-quality educational programs. And, there was some concern expressed that teaching competencies could evolve into a form of “teaching the test.” Might the adoption of the for-profit competency model within accrediting standards result in our being forced into a “teach the test” model? If so, might this change the outcomes, goals and nature of our doctoral programs? (These and other similar topics may be subsumed as a part of the previously proposed forum.)

COUNCIL ON FACULTY AWARDS AND HONORS

2010-11 ANNUAL REPORT

SUBMITTED BY KEVIN HANEY, CHAIR

Members Present:

Kevin Haney (Chair) Development Dentistry

A. F. Al-Assaf Health Administration & Policy

Nancy Chu Nursing

Dora DiGiacinto Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences

Brenda Keeling Alumni

Petra Klein Meteorology

Satish Kumar Medicine

S. Lakshmivarahan Computer Science

Nim Razook Marketing

Members Absent:

LeRoy Blank Chemistry & Biochemistry

Linda Zagzebski Philosophy

HSC Provost’s Office Staff:

Peggy Brown

Caroline Wheelbarger

I. Dr. Haney called the meeting to order at 10:15 am. on January 21, 2011.

II. Committee members introduced themselves.

III. The Council considered an outstanding group of 59 nominees. After a brief explanation of the selection process by Dr. Haney, the following selections were made (in rank order based on scores):

David Ross Boyd Professorship
Three recipients were selected from five nominations and approved by unanimous vote.

Regents’ Professorship
One nomination was received and approved by unanimous vote.

Regents’ Award for Superior Professional and University Service and Public Outreach
Two recipients were selected from ten nominations and approved by unanimous vote.

Regents’ Award for Superior Research and Creative Activity
Two recipients were selected from twelve nominations and approved by unanimous vote.

Regents’ Award for Superior Teaching

Five recipients were selected from sixteen nominations and approved by unanimous vote.

General Education Teaching Award

One recipient was selected from two nominations and approved by unanimous vote.

Good Teaching Award

The first recipient was selected from eleven nominations and approved by unanimous vote. The second recipient was selected by majority vote between two nominees.

Merrick Teaching Award – One recipient was selected from two nominations and approved by unanimous vote.

IV. Council members volunteered to write biographical sketches on each recipient and to be forwarded to Caroline Wheelbarger by February 7, 2011.

V. S. Lakshmivarahan was selected as chair for the 2011-2012 term.

VI. Other Business: no other business was brought to the table.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 pm.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (NORMAN)

2010-11 ANNUAL REPORT

SUBMITTED BY CHUNG KAO, CHAIR

_Membership

_{Members of the 2010—2011 Information Technology Council and their
departments,}

_{Faculty Senate Appointees:}

Todd Stewart

Chung Kao

Art

Physics & Astronomy

Tammy McCuen

Randy Kolar

Construction Science

Civil Engineering & Env. Science

Al Schwarzkopf

MIS

Staff Senate Appointees:

Jeffrey Boles CCE Outreach

Stefan Ice Music

Samuel Callahan Architecture

Ex-officio Members:

Robert Kelly For the Senior Vice President & Provost

Burr Millsap Vice President for Administrative Affairs designate

Dimitrios Papavassiliou For the Vice President for Research

Nick Hathaway President Designee

Dennis Aebersold VP for Info Technology and CIO

Meetings

2009: September 16, October 21, and November 18

2010: February 17, March 10, and April 21

Location: Jacobson Hall Room 206

Projects and Issues

Updates and review process to improve oZONE (Brad Burnett):

Phase 2 has been completed and oZONE is now in the phase of “Ongoing Operations”. Operational team leaders are being identified by IT. The Project Team is transitioning out and IT will manage oZONE from now on. Flexible registration – shopping carts – has not gone live due to Sun Guard’s delay. Most recent version will be tested over the next couple of weeks by the project team before going live. ODS team is continuing to work in original capacity. Project team is working on an automated job scheduler for business units across campus. COGNOS training group (report writing) is being assembled to train campus wide.

oZONE Request Committee – receives request for change to current system and for enhancements functionality. Membership includes representatives from multiple areas of interest. ORC reports a significant reduction in the number of requests over the last year. Requests assigned every two weeks.

Nick reported HELP in oZONE is available 24/7 now through the IT Help Desk.

Updates and review process to upgrade D2L (Michelle Davis):

Set up of test server is in process now. There has been face-lift for log in page, navigation bar, and internal graphics. It is now able to upload users’ photographs in the course roster. Concern expressed with ensuring appropriate photographs are uploaded and possibility of using official photographs from iThink. Launch at end of semester with an expected downtime for upgrade – 1 day – Friday, May 20, 2011. D2L will complete the upgrade and Michelle will follow up. D2L upgrade includes a mobile application that is working with iPhone, Android, Blackberry, and PalmOS.

Mobile applications (Nick Key): OU2Go revamped by IT Mobile Group and version 2 released in September 2010. OU4U released in September 2010 and expect a widespread campaign in spring 2011. Includes access to D2L, library, GIS locator, and other campus sites. Content upgrade on mobile applications includes a calendar and CART GPS. Steering committee wants to limit the mobile apps to two applications to remain concise and dynamic versus adding multiple applications.

New copier and printer program (John Sarantakos – Director of Printing and Mailing): An extension of a 10-year program for 10 years with three vendors to supply printers and multi-functional devices. Includes desktop printers, the Vendors are Sooner Copy, BMI, and Stanley Systems. New contract excludes the cost per copy component in previous vendor contracts. Instead it is locked annually, evaluated at the end of the year, and adjusted if necessary. Goals are to (1) place the correct copiers, (2) determine appropriate solution, (3) arrive at an overall plan to teach departments how to migrate from desktop printers to a multi-functional device, and (4) teach people how not to print. Save money and become more sustainable. Priority for printing/copying/scanning device: Contract – lease - first, IT store second, but purchasing will not approve purchase of desktop printers any longer.

*Color printers are allowable if justified on a departmental basis.

If a desktop printer is needed it may be acquired through the contract with a vendor to lease the desktop. Lease includes all the maintenance, toner, and service for the device.

More site licenses for useful software:

We requested that a comprehensive list of all the software available through the campus license be posted – perhaps at the IT Store. Robert recommended perhaps looking at competing products that may be a reduced price or even ‘free’. Nick pointed out that some of these products might not offer an enterprise license but only individual license.

Sam mentioned Blue Beam as an alternative for Adobe.

Security Scans (Nick Key):

IT will not scan unless requested to do so by the department. IT does not capture data or display data. The scan looks only for specific information such as, social security numbers. The report only shows the file name, the path, and occurrences of possible personal information. Files are not being removed or quarantined by IT. Each individual is responsible for remediating sensitive data from their machine. If sensitive data is compromised then the individual is responsible.

Opportunities for wireless deployments over the summer:

Discussions included Catlett, Carson basement, Cross Main, Hester Hall, Dale Hall classrooms, Dale Hall Tower (currently getting residual from classrooms), and other general education classrooms on the South Oval. Dale Hall has been identified as a priority to upgrade classrooms during peak times. Access points are designed to support 25-30 students at a time. Problem is with large classes in proximity Map of current OUWifi coverage is available on website

Student online behavior and conduct:

IT has been working with the student office of conduct. A social media policy is in the hands of public affairs at this item and guidelines for online conduct are in the process of development as it parallels to the University’s student code of conduct.

CIO succession plan:

Dennis Aebersold is retiring June 30, 2011. Short-term plan is that Loretta Early will transition in to the Vice President/CIO position as an interim. Discussions will begin with the Regents during the summer about the long-term plan.

Election of New Chair:
Al Schwarzkopf was elected to serve as the ITC Chair in 2011-12.

Selection of IT Council Secretary:
Sam Callahan volunteered to take meeting minutes for next year.

Jeff Boles volunteered to be the backup.

Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank the OU Information Technology for providing valuable information to the IT Council and support for the Norman Campus during the year, especially, Nick Key, Brad Burnett, Michelle Davis, and John Sarantakos. In addition, the chair want to thank Tammy McCuen for taking minutes this year, Robert Kelly for maintaining and updating the ITC website, and all members of the ITC for their active involvement in discussions and investigations.

RESEARCH COUNCIL (NORMAN)

2010-2011 ANNUAL REPORT

Submitted by NOEL BRADY, Chair

Membership

The members of the 2010-11 Research Council, their departments and terms:

Noel Brady	Mathematics	2008-11
Sridhar Radhakrishnan	Computer Science	2008-11
Joanna Rapf	English	2008-11
Laurie Scrivener	University Libraries	2008-11
Elizabeth Butler	Civil Engineering & Environmental Science	2009-12
David Boeck	Architecture	2009-12
K. David Hambright	Zoology	2009-12
Karen Leighly	Physics/Astronomy	2009-12
Marcia Haag	Modern Languages, Linguistics, Literature	2010-13
Marvin Lamb	Music	2010-13
Michael McInerney	Botany/Microbiology	2010-13
Paul Spicer	Anthropology	2010-13
Lori Snyder	Psychology	2010-13

Ex-Officio Members:

Kelvin Droegemeier	Vice President for Research
Andrea Deaton	Associate Vice President for Research
Alicia Knoedler	Assistant Vice President for Research, and Director of the Center for Research Program Development & Enrichment

Secretary:

Linda Kilby

Professor Laurie Scrivener joined the council in January 2011 to complete the term for Karen Antell.

Professors Brady, Radhakrishnan, Rapf, and Scrivener are completing their terms at the end of the

2010-11 academic year. The 2011-12 Chair of the Research Council was elected at the May meeting and will be Dr. David Boeck, College of Architecture.

The Faculty Senate has appointed Terry Rugeley to replace Joanna Rapf, and re-appointed Laurie Scrivener for 2011-14.

The Presidential Appointments to replace Noel Brady and Sridhar Radhakrishnan will be forthcoming.

In accordance to the charge of the Research Council (January 7, 2004), appointments to the Council did include two members in each of the following six areas and one member from Fine Arts:

a) Engineering: Liz Butler and Sridhar Radhakrishnan.

b) Physical Sciences: Noel Brady and Karen Leighly

c) Social Sciences and Education: Paul Spicer and Lori Snyder

d) Biological Sciences: Michael McInerney and K. David Hambright

e) Humanities and Arts: Marcia Haag and Joanna Rapf

f) Other: Laurie Scrivener and David Boeck

g) Fine Arts: Marvin Lamb

Activities (2010-11)

The primary activity of the Research Council during the 2010-11 academic year was to advise and make recommendations to the Vice President for Research (VPR) pertaining to expenditures and awards under his administration, namely

a) Small Grant Awards (< $1,200)

b) Reprint Awards (< $250)

c) Large Grants ($1,200 - $7,500)

d) PI Investment Awards ($1,200 - $10,000)

e) Junior Faculty Fellowships ($7,000 + Fringe)

f) Potentially Transformative Research ($10,000 - $50,000)

The first two awards are decided by the VPR directly without Council involvement; the Council decided the time they would spend on reviewing these applications did not justify the monetary resources involved. A summary of the Research Council recommendations approved by the VPR for the period June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2011, is attached.

Also, the Council reviewed nominations and made recommendations to the Provost for the George Lynn Cross Research Professorship and the Henry Daniel Rinsland Memorial Award for Excellence in Educational Research.

There were several additional initiatives to which the Research Council devoted time and discussion.

a) Potentially Transformative Research (PTR) program.

http://vpr-norman.ou.edu/research-council/funding/potentially-transformative-research-program

The incoming Chair led a taskforce in Summer 2010 to design a new Research Council funding program; the PTR program. The goal of the program is to provide seed funding in order to promote research, scholarship, and creativity that has the potential to effect radical changes to existing paradigms in a faculty member's field, but which might be considered too risky for standard funding venues.

The PTR program was implemented in Fall 2010, using $50,000 in new funds from the VPR in addition to funds from the Research Council carryover. The Research Council used a 2-stage review procedure. Stage 1 involved reviewing two-page pre-proposals, and choosing a subset of the applicants for the second stage. In stage 2, the applicants made brief presentations to the Research Council followed by Q&A. In Fall 2010 there were 22 applications to the PTR program. Seven of these made it to stage 2. After stage 2, the Research Council recommended to the VPR that two proposals be funded; one at $50,000 and one at $36,296.

b) Resources for faculty who are applying for Research Council funding.

http://vpr-norman.ou.edu/files/vpr/reports/RC_proposal_preparation_tips.pdf

The Research Council crafted a series of tips on proposal preparation. This document includes general comments on proposal preparation, a list of DOs and DON’Ts, and specific tips for applicants to the Junior Faculty program. This document evolved gradually over the 2010-11 academic year, and the list of DOs and DON’Ts reflects discussions that the Council had about specific proposals during this time. This document also contains a paragraph that encourages faculty to use the services of the Center for Research Program Development & Enrichment (http://crpde.ou.edu). Similar paragraphs are now included in the Research Council program solicitations, and in the award notification and declination letters sent out by the VPR.

c) Task Force to reconsider the Research Council funding portfolio.

In Spring 2011, the Chair led a taskforce to reconsider the Research Council funding portfolio. The taskforce is comprised of several current and past Research Council members, several past Research Council chairs, and some members of the VPR-Advisory Committee. Here are two major changes that the taskforce is considering.

One idea that the taskforce is developing is to replace the Over 1,200 program, the PI Research Investment program, and the Arts and Humanities and Creative Activity program by a single program: the Faculty Investment Program. This idea received much positive feedback from the Research Council in the May meeting. A program solicitation is currently being developed.

The taskforce is considering the idea of having the Research Council administer the Faculty Challenge Grants program. The taskforce is currently discussing the logistics of implementing this program.

There are more possible changes to discuss. The taskforce will continue to meet during Summer 2011, and also in Fall 2011.

d) $10,000 of carryover to the VPR Faculty Travel Assistance Grants program.

Between the April and May meetings, the Research Council received a request from the VPR office to use some Research Council carryover to help fund the VPR Faculty Travel Assistance Grants program for the remainder of the year. After careful consideration, the Research Council approved a one time, $10,000 transfer from Research Council carryover to the VPR Faculty Travel Assistance Grants program.

e) Conflict of Interest policy.

In Spring 2011 a taskforce consisting of three Research Council members started to discuss wording for a Conflict of Interest policy for the Research Council. This is continuing in Summer 2011.

On behalf of the Research Council, the Chair would like to thank Vice President for Research, Kelvin Droegemeier, for his enthusiasm, energetic leadership and unique vision in reshaping the research landscape at the University of Oklahoma through the numerous Aspire 2020 initiatives. The Research Council welcomes Alicia Knoedler, Assistant Vice President for Research and Director of the Center for Research Program Development & Enrichment, to the University of Oklahoma, and thanks her for her efforts on behalf of the Council and for her support of the OU faculty in their efforts to produce quality research and creative activity. The Research Council also thanks Andrea Deaton, Associate Vice President for Research, for her efforts on behalf of the Council and the OU faculty. Finally, the Council thanks Linda Kilby, Secretary to the Council, for the many contributions she made to the smooth, efficient and successful functioning of the Council this year. At the May meeting, the Research Council Chair presented Ms. Kilby with a ceramic pot and a card as a token of our thanks and appreciation.

FY11 SUMMARY OF COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS

APPROVED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH

AWARD	NUMBER	AMOUNT

*SMALL GRANT*
Engineering
Physical Sciences
Social Sciences & Education	2	$ 2,200.00
Biological Sciences
Humanities & Arts	14	15,031.00
Other	2	2,400.00
*TOTAL*	18	*$19,631.00*

*LARGE GRANT*
Engineering
Physical Sciences	1	$ 3,589.00
Social Sciences & Education	1	6,489.00
Biological Sciences
Humanities & Arts	7	46,026.00
Other	1	4,130.00
*TOTAL*	10	*$60,234.00*

*PI RESEARCH INVESTMENT*
Engineering	1	$ 7,338.00
Physical Sciences	1	9,937.00
Social Sciences & Education
Biological Sciences
Humanities & Arts
Other
*TOTAL*	2	*$17,275.00*

*JUNIOR FACULTY* *(includes Fringe Benefits)*
Engineering
Physical Sciences	2	$ 15,620.00
Social Sciences & Education	2	19,040.00
Biological Sciences	1	7,000.00
Humanities & Arts	7	57,439.48
Other	2	19,040.00
*TOTAL*	14	*$118,139.48*

*PTR Program*	2	*$ 86,296.00*

*REPRINTS*	21	*8,487.24*

TOTAL GRANTS AWARDED	67	$310,062.72

FACULTY SENATE

FACULTY COMPENSATION COMMITTEE (Norman)

2010-2011 ANNUAL REPORT

Submitted by K.K. “Muralee” Muraleetharan, Chair

Membership:

Jie (Lily) Huang (Univ. Libraries) (2008-11)

K.K. “Muralee” Muraleetharan (Civil Engineering & Environmental Science) (2010-12), Chair

Allison Palmer (Art) (2008-11)

Jos Raadschelders (Political Science) (2010-13, to resign from OU effective 8/16/11)

Cindy Rogers (Economics) (2009-12)

Meetings:

· The FCC held two formal meetings on November 11, 2010 and April 4, 2011 and communicated via email in relation to activities described below.

· The FCC chair met with the OU Human Resources (OUHR) staff (Nick Kelly and Renda Passek) together with Jon Forman (Law), the resource person assigned to FCC by the Faculty Senate Chair, to discuss the benefits payable during sabbatical leave on November 5, 2010.

· The FCC chair met with Kelvin Droegemeier (Vice President for Research) on December 16, 2010 and with Morris Foster (Associate Vice President for Research) on April 6, 2011 to discuss OU’s extra compensation policy.

Activities:

The Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FSEC) requested that the FCC look into two issues during this academic year: (i) modifications to the Faculty Handbook to better clarify benefits payable to faculty during sabbatical leave and (ii) ways to improve the faculty compensation through extra compensation. The activities related to these two tasks are described below.

Task 1 – Benefits Payable During Sabbatical Leave:

The Faculty Senate Chair provided Jon Forman (Law), whose expertise is in pension and health benefits, as a resource person to FCC. Together with OUHR staff and Jon Forman, the FCC drafted proposed modifications (see Attachment A) to the faculty handbook and submitted it to the Provost through the FSEC. The Provost accepted the proposed modifications, except the examples shown in Attachment A, and changed the Faculty Handbook accordingly.

Task 2 – Extra Compensation:

The FCC reviewed OU’s current Outside Employment and Extra Compensation Policy and concluded that the current policy can be improved to make it easy for faculty to earn extra compensation for work within OU or when bringing outside funds through OU. The FCC found out that the VPR is also looking into this policy in a broader context of providing incentives for research and creative activities. At the request of FCC, the FCC chair met with the VPR and the Associate VPR and conveyed the FCC’s observations on this policy. The VPR’s office ensured that they will coordinate their activities related to any policy changes with the FCC.

Attachment A

FACULTY HANDBOOK

SABBATICAL LEAVE POLICY

Employment benefits for faculty members on sabbatical with full salary will continue at full benefits levels.

Employment benefits for faculty members on sabbatical leave at less than full salary will be as follows:

Health, Accidental Death and Dismemberment, and Dental insurance will continue at full benefit level. Please refer to the Medical Plan Rates Chart for full-time, salaried active-employees listed on the Human Resources website. Although faculty members receive half of their regular salary, the full-time rate for their full-time salary tier will be deducted from their paychecks. Please refer to the Medical Plans Rates Chart to determine the amount that will be deducted. You will be responsible for any benefit premium amounts in excess of Sooner Credits while you are on a half pay sabbatical.

Social Security contributions will be based on the actual salary paid and Defined Contribution benefit will be computed by reducing the salary that is exempt (normally the first $9,000) in the same proportion to the sabbatical FTE. For example, for a faculty member on sabbatical leave at half-pay for a year, the exempt salary will be reduced to $4,500.

OTRS rules provide that employees on official sabbatical leave may fully credit the sabbatical period toward years of service if the employee receives at least one-half pay during the sabbatical and the retirement contributions during the sabbatical are made at the full-time rate (i.e., the rate commensurate with the salary earned as a regular full-time employee in the last preceding school year).

University contributions will be concomitant with the employee’s contributions to OTRS, at either the half-time or full-time rate. The member must elect to participate and make contributions to OTRS at the time of the sabbatical. Credit for sabbatical leave cannot be purchased by the member at a later date. See OTRS rules, OAC sec. 715:10-1-4. This agreement authorizes the university to make OTRS contributions at the full-time rate during a half-pay sabbatical.

Example of Health and OTRS deductions for an unmarried professor who normally makes $100,000 a year and who has elected to have her nine-month salary paid out over 12 months:

1. Taking a semester at full pay (100K Salary for the year, Full Year OTRS Credit)

$65.42 Monthly Health Deduction for Employee Only - PPO Plan = $785.04 Annual Deduction

Total Compensation $118,501 (includes 15% DCP and OU's share of Health, Dental, Accidental Death and Dismemberment, and life insurances)

15% DCP = $13,650.00

$691 Monthly OTRS Deduction (7% of the total compensation) = $8,292 Annual Deduction

2. Taking a year at half-pay, no election (50K Salary for the year, Half Year OTRS Credit)

$65.42 Monthly Health Deduction for Employee Only - PPO Plan = $785.04 Annual Deduction

Total Compensation $61,676 (includes 15% DCP and OU's share of Health, Dental, Accidental Death and Dismemberment, and life insurances)

15% DCP = $6,825.00

$360 Monthly OTRS Deduction (7% of the total sabbatical compensation) = $4,320 Annual Deduction

3. Taking a year at half pay and electing a full year OTRS Credit (50K Salary for the year, Full Year OTRS Credit)

$65.42 Monthly Health Deduction for Employee Only - PPO Plan = $785.04 Annual Deduction

Total Compensation $61,676 (includes 15% DCP and OU's share of Health, Dental, Accidental Death and Dismemberment, and life insurances)

15% DCP = $6,825.00

$691 Monthly OTRS Deduction = $8,292 Annual Deduction (based on the full salary of prior fiscal year)

FACULTY SENATE

FACULTY WELFARE COMMITTEE (Norman)

2010-2011 ANNUAL REPORT

Submitted by SCOTT MOSES, Chair

1. Membership

2. Summary of Accomplishments

3. Improvements to Retirement Savings Programs

3.1 Summary of FWC Involvement

3.2 Summary of Improvements Made

4. Resolution on Roth Contribution Option

5. Resolution on Wellness

5.1 Background

5.2 Area 1: University Employee Wellness Report Card

5.3 Area 2: Tobacco-free / Smoke-free Campus

5.4 Area 3: Incentives for Healthy Behavior

5.5 Area 4: Healthy Eating Options

6. Meeting Summaries

1. Membership

The members of the 2010-2011 Faculty Welfare Committee, their departments and terms:

Debra Bemben	Health & Exercise Science	2008-11
Neil Houser	Instructional Leadership & Academic Curriculum	2008-11
Scott Moses	Industrial Engineering	2009-12
Al Schwarzkopf	Management Information Systems	2010-13
Deborah Trytten	Computer Science	2010-13

2. Summary of Accomplishments

Following are the major accomplishments of the Faculty Welfare Committee during 2010-2011:

1. Recommended that consideration by the Board of Regents of the proposal to change retirement savings programs be delayed from November 2010 until at least March 2011 so that adequate time would be available to fully understand the proposed plan and to identify and make improvements (recommendation was accepted)

2. Identified eight improvements that could be made in the proposal to change retirement savings programs (almost all of these improvements were incorporated)

3. Prepared a resolution for the Faculty Senate requesting a Roth contribution option be made available in 403(b) and 457(b) plans (approved unanimously, with one abstention).

4. Prepared a resolution for the Faculty Senate requesting an expanded commitment to wellness (approved unanimously, with one abstention).

5. Recommended that ‘wellness ambassadors’ be appointed in each unit to disseminate periodic information updates from the OU wellness program.

6. Held a number of discussions with administrators on issues related to wellness and healthcare

7. Continued to advocate for a tobacco-free campus (a resolution from the FWC on this matter was approved by the Faculty Senate during the previous academic year)

8. Provided feedback on process issues and coverage issues related to Long Term Disability and requested more informative summary communication be given to employees during enrollment.

9. Provided feedback on usability of the benefits enrollment website.

3. Improvements to Retirement Savings Programs

The Retirement Plans Management Committee (RPMC) was formed in 2008 to identify opportunities to improve retirement savings programs sponsored by the university including various Defined Contribution Plans (DCP) and the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP). In the Fall of 2010 the RPMC began to make specific information available about the proposed changes to the defined contribution plan offerings.

3.1 Summary of FWC Involvement

As details of the original proposal developed by the RPMC began to be made available in the Fall of 2010, the Chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee wrote an email to colleagues and to the RPMC on October 22 that outlined a number of concerns he had with the proposed plan. By November 5 his concerns with the proposed plan had gelled into the following list of objectives for improving the plan structure:[1]

1. Tier 1: Include index-based Vanguard Target Date funds (replace or augment the actively-managed Fidelity Freedom funds).

2. Tier 2 (now Tier 2 and 3): Include a larger number of asset classes (preferably represented with index funds when available).

3. Tier 2 (now Tier 2 and 3): Provide better transparency of criteria and develop a better mechanism for incorporating employee input into selection of Tier 2 (now 2 and 3) funds.

4. Tier 3 (now Tier 4): Waive the $75 transaction fee for all Tier 3 (now 4) funds at transition (not just for one fund) so that employees can maintain current holdings.

5. Tier 3 (now Tier 4): Improve communication on the availability of ETFs in the proposed plan (while also noting that these will not be available in the 403(b) plan).

6. Recordkeeping: OU to absorb $4/month fee (eliminate fee charged to employees) since currently there is no per person fee charged by OU for recordkeeping.

7. Recordkeeping: Develop a plan to add Roth contribution options for 403(b) and 457(b) plans, with these hopefully being available by January 2012.

8. Tier 2: Place index funds into a separate tier from actively managed funds [added in December after a review of a comparable process at Purdue University]

On October 25 the Faculty Welfare Committee unanimously recommended that consideration of the proposed plan by the Board of Regents be delayed from November 2010 until at least March 2011 so that adequate time could be available to communicate to the faculty, fully review the proposed plan, and identify and incorporate improvements to the proposal. This recommendation forwarded by the Faculty Senate Small Exec and was accepted by the RPMC on November 6.

From November 2010 through March 2011 the RPMC listened carefully and seriously reviewed and acted upon the feedback they received from a number of sources including the Faculty Welfare Committee and the Faculty Senate Small Executive Committee.

3.2 Summary of Improvements Made

As a result of this process, the FWC believes OU now has an improved and indeed an excellent plan. A change of this magnitude will involve “adjustment” by employees and its implementation will require substantial communication and education. However, the plan offers something for employees with varying investment objectives, investing styles, and degrees of sophistication. Employees will be well served by this plan relative to the current plan.

Following is a summary of the changes that were made to the original proposal from November 2010 to March 2011.

1) Tier 1: Include index-based Vanguard Target Date funds (replace or augment the actively managed Fidelity Freedom funds).

Outcome: Positive

A set of target retirement date funds that are built on low-cost index funds will be offered along with a set of target retirement date funds that are built on actively managed funds. Both sets of target retirement date funds are managed by Fidelity.

The expense ratio of the index-based TRD funds from Fidelity is a low 0.19%, which is essentially identical to the expense ratios of comparable Vanguard funds (ranging from 0.17% to 0.20%).

The index-based funds will be listed in Tier 2 along with other index funds, even though they are similar in purpose to the actively managed target retirement date funds in Tier 1.

2) Tier 2 (now Tier 2 and 3): Include a larger number of asset classes (preferably represented with index funds when available).

Outcome: Positive (generally)

The following asset classes were suggested

· REIT (Real Estate Investment Trusts)

The RPMC added an index fund to the plan to represent this asset class.

· Short-term bond

The RPMC added an index fund to the plan to represent this asset class.

· International small cap stock

The index for the Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund in Tier 2 was broadened in December 2010 to include international small cap stocks and therefore a separate fund was no longer necessary to provide exposure to this asset class.

· Short-term corporate bond

This asset class was considered but a fund was not added since the risk/return profile did not seem sufficiently different from the short-term bond index.

· International bond

A fund for this asset class was not included.

As a result of the changes made in response to this request, Tier 2 now has a rather complete set of very low-cost index funds that cover the following asset classes:

· Domestic stocks (single fund for the total domestic market with large, mid and small cap stocks)

· International stocks (single fund for the total international market with large, mid and small cap stocks from developing and emerging markets and including Canada)

· Bonds (single fund for the total bond market)

· TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities)

· REITs (single fund representing various types of Real Estate Investment Trusts), and

· Short-term bonds (for near-cash).

Furthermore, some of the funds will have a lower expense ratio than employees are paying if they currently own these funds.

3) Tier 2 (now Tier 2 and 3): Better transparency of criteria and better mechanism for incorporating employee input into selection of Tier 2 (now 2 and 3) funds.

Outcome: Positive and Pending

A single faculty representative was added to the RPMC in March 2010 after a request was made from the Faculty Senate. Two additional faculty representatives will be added in 2011 for a total of three faculty representatives serving staggered three-year terms. It remains to be seen how well employee needs are recognized and how employee feedback is received in the future.

4) Tier 3 (now Tier 4): Waive $75 fee for all Tier 3 (now 4) funds at transition (not just for one fund) so that employees can maintain current holdings.

Outcome: Positive

A re-registration process will be provided that allows current Vanguard clients to maintain their current positions without employees paying or the university absorbing several hundred dollars per employee in transaction fees. Note that a re-registration process avoids having to perform an automated sale of the fund in the closed account and repurchase of the fund in the new account. Also note that this applies to current assets (at the time of transition), not to future contributions.

Otherwise, the plan will absorb these fees for a limited time. After that time, purchases of Tier 3 (now 4) funds will be subject to the fee, unless they are NTF funds.

5) Tier 3 (now Tier 4): Do a better job communicating the availability of ETFs (note that these are not available in 403(b)).

Outcome: Pending

Communication and education will be performed during the transition.

6) Recordkeeping: OU to absorb $4/month fee (eliminate fee charged to employees) since currently there is no per person fee charged by OU for recordkeeping.

Outcome: No Change – Understandable

The fee will not be eliminated at this time, however the hidden nature of fees in the legacy plan and the size of the new fee needs to be put in perspective.

1) In the case of employees who do not invest with Vanguard, the new plan will reduce fees that are not explicit (i.e., hidden). These employees are likely to see significant savings, in the form of higher net returns on their investments than they would otherwise have had.

2) In the case of employees who do invest with Vanguard, the savings may be less dramatic but do exist. Some of the Vanguard funds in Tier 2 such as the Total Bond Market Fund and the REIT Index Fund have lower expense ratios than employees with Vanguard accounts currently pay.

3) The expanded availability of funds and ETFs in Tier 3 (now 4) provide choices that were not previously available, although these may require a nontrivial transaction fee.

Furthermore, over the next few years it is expected the $48/year fee and the expense ratios on some funds will decrease. This can be explained as follows. The cost of administering the retirement plans (roughly $1M/year) is recovered from two sources: (1) the $48/year fee being charged to employees and (2) a portion of expense ratios on some funds that is returned to OU (revenue sharing). Importantly, these revenues will be used exclusively for paying plan expenses and will not be used for other purposes at the university (revenues won’t become a slush fund). Over the next five years the assets under management in the plan will increase but recordkeeping expenses will remain constant. As a result, the recordkeeping fee and/or expense ratios on funds will decrease (not increase) over the next five years.

7) Recordkeeping: Develop a plan to add Roth contribution options for 403(b) and 457(b) plans, with these hopefully being available by January 2012.

Outcome: Positive

In January 2011, the FWC decided to put forward a resolution requesting that the University provide Roth contribution options for the 403(b) and 457(b) voluntary retirement savings plans. This resolution was approved unanimously (with one abstention) at the February meeting of the Faculty Senate.

In mid-March Fidelity agreed to allow Roth provisions to be added to both the 403(b) and 457(b) plans with no implementation or ongoing costs.

8) Tier 2: Place Index funds into a separate tier from Actively managed funds

Outcome: Positive

Funds in the former Tier 2 have been separated and placed into distinct tiers, with index funds being defined as Tier 2 and actively managed funds being defined as Tier 3 (a higher numbered tier highlights the higher risk of actively managed funds relative to index funds).

4. Resolution on Roth Contribution Option

A resolution requesting a Roth contribution option for 403(b) and 457(b) plans

Whereas: The University of Oklahoma offers two voluntary retirement savings plans for employees, namely the 403(b) and 457(b) plans, hereafter referred to as VRSPs, and;

Whereas: Contributions to VRSPs historically have only been allowed to be made using pre-tax dollars and therefore withdrawals are treated as taxable income, and;

Whereas: A Roth contribution option to VRSPs is now permitted by law and allows employees to make contributions with after-tax dollars and thereby withdraw earnings tax‐free at retirement (subject to rules on qualified distributions), and;

Whereas: Adding a Roth contribution option to VRSPs allows employees to increase the diversification of the taxability of their retirement income, and;

Whereas: A Roth contribution option to VRSPs would make Roth accounts available to employees who otherwise are ineligible to contribute to Roth IRAs due to income limitations;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate of The University of Oklahoma hereby requests that The University of Oklahoma provide a Roth contribution option for 403(b) and 457(b) voluntary retirement savings plans beginning no later than January 2012.

5. Resolution on Wellness

A resolution requesting an expanded commitment to wellness

Whereas: The University of Oklahoma has committed to improving the wellness of its employees as demonstrated through the creation of a Wellness Coordinator position and reduced cost membership to the Huston Huffman Center for employees, and;

Whereas: Healthcare costs are consuming an increasing portion of the University’s budget as well as reducing the amount of employee take-home pay, and;

Whereas: Incentives that encourage employees to pursue healthy behaviors are demonstrated to increase the practice of healthy behaviors, and;

Whereas: The practice of healthy behaviors leads to an increase in employee wellness, which reduces healthcare costs for both the employee and the employer, reduces healthcare premiums, and improves employee productivity, and;

Whereas: Research findings support exercise as the key to increasing personal strength, endurance, and flexibility, as well as improving energy, attitude, and mood, and;

Whereas: The University community is more likely to make healthy eating and behavioral choices when they are available, affordable, and accessible;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate of The University of Oklahoma hereby requests that The University of Oklahoma intensify its commitment to wellness by expanding wellness programs, annually evaluating the state of campus wellness in an annual Employee Wellness Report that follows the format of the Certified Healthy Business Program or other similar scoring metrics, implementing a tobacco-free/smoke-free policy on all campuses, offering incentives, including financial, that encourage healthy behavior, and increasing the range and availability of healthy eating options.

5.1 Background

In recent years, the University of Oklahoma has begun to engage in several activities designed to improve the health and wellbeing of members of the University Community such as: reduced cost membership to the Huston Huffman facility for faculty and staff, smoking cessation programs, Weight Watchers at Work, consultation on bicycle paths, and moving toward a more bicycle-friendly campus, semi-annual health screenings, smoke-free campuses at the Health Sciences Center and the Tulsa Schusterman Center, and the creation of a Wellness Coordinator position to promote wellness activities that to date include monthly newsletters, classes, screenings, and promotions that provide information about health issues.

The University of Oklahoma should expand its commitment to employee wellness. Identified below are four areas for improvement recommended by the Faculty Welfare Committee and endorsed by the Faculty Senate.

5.2 Area 1: University Employee Wellness Report Card

The University should make it a priority to support employees’ efforts to enhance their wellness. Other public universities encourage this, as confirmed by the Oklahoma State University Certified Healthy Departments initiative (http://news.okstate.edu/press-releases/839-oklahoma-state-universitys-announces-2011-certified-healthy-departments). In fact, the OSU Institute of Technology has received the “Healthy Business” award from the Oklahoma Certified Healthy Business Program (www.okturningpoint.org) for the past two years. The score sheet for this program is available at the following website: http://www.okturningpoint.org/2010CHB/CertifiedBusinessTally10.pdf.

It is recommended that a University Employee Wellness Report Card be developed collaboratively in the 2011-2012 academic year with representation from faculty, students, staff, and administrators. Possible areas of specific relevance to the University to consider including in the Employee Wellness Report Card are:

Facilities and Environment for Wellness

· Tobacco-free campus

· Goddard Health Center

· Huston Huffman Fitness Center

· Group fitness classes

· Murray Case Sells Swim Complex

· Bicycle paths and walking paths

· Faculty workout facility

· Campus food dining centers and offerings

· Campus catering

Programs for Wellness

· Free health risk assessments

· Group fitness classes

· Weight Watchers @ Work

· Tobacco cessation programs

· Educational seminars

· Events (e.g., fun run/walk, cycling)

· Information sharing (e.g., monthly newsletters)

· Advice and counseling (e.g., exercise, nutrition, weight)

· Goddard Outreach Programming

· Employee Assistance Program

Incentives for Wellness

· Reduced cost membership at Huston Huffman Center

· Preventative care coverage

· Tangible incentives for wellness

· Reimbursement for tobacco cessation products

5.3 Area 2: Tobacco-free / Smoke-free Campus

Over 380 U.S. colleges and universities are completely smoke free, which in Oklahoma include The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, The University of Oklahoma Tulsa Campus, Oklahoma State University Stillwater Campus, Oklahoma State University Tulsa Campus, University of Central Oklahoma, Oklahoma City University, and the University of Tulsa. Numerous factors motivate the decision to become smoke free: (1) secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers, who have chosen to not smoke, (2) secondhand smoke causes heart disease in adults, with recent studies finding that smoke-free laws reduce the rate of heart attacks by an average of 17% in just the first year after adoption, with the largest reduction occurring in non-smokers, (3) the National Cancer Institute has concluded that “there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke,” (4) eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke on the Norman campus will have a direct and significant positive effect on the cost of employee benefits over time, and (5) the highest rating for an Oklahoma Certified Healthy Business is only possible for entities whose entire property is tobacco-free, both indoor and outdoor.

5.4 Area 3: Incentives for Healthy Behavior

In both the private and public sectors, organizations have been adding incentives to their wellness programs to encourage healthy behavior. The University should analyze these incentives and develop an incentive program that will encourage healthy behavior by employees. Properly designed incentives will reduce health care expenses over time. The federal government’s HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions define the requirements that a wellness program must meet when structuring incentives.

5.5 Area 4: Healthy Eating Options

Like other public and private universities around the country, the University should promote healthy eating options in the regular meal programming options as well as for event programming. At Princeton, daily menus provide options for a healthy diet based on the principles of moderation and variety, and nutritional information is provided for the daily menus. Students at Louisville are encouraged to buy a season's worth of local produce up front, which is delivered in the form of a basket once a week during the Community Supported Agriculture Fair. Oregon State University promotes healthier options by simply making them more affordable, accessible and easy for the customer to choose.

6. Meeting Summaries

First Meeting (September 20, 2010)

Julius Hilburn (Associate Vice President & Chief Human Resources Officer) and Nick Kelly (Assistant Director of Human Resources) visited the FWC for our first meeting of AY10-11.

The first topic of discussion was the 2011 health insurance renewal. Topics included the higher rate of increase in HMO premiums compared to PPO and possible implications for the future such as alternatives to the HMO. A short discussion was held on current retiree medical coverage. A short discussion was held on encouraging initial results from the new wellness programs even though they are limited in scope.

The second topic of discussion was the proposed overhaul of retirement savings programs management. At the time of the meeting details were not available, and it was expected that the faculty would be given only a few weeks between the time that details are made available and when the changes are brought before the Regents.

Second Meeting (October 25, 2010)

We discussed the proposed changes to management of defined contribution plans. Members of the committee raised a number of concerns:

· The process is going forward too quickly. Faculty need more time to understand the impact of the proposal for their personal context. Faculty need to see impact scenarios available for each major group (e.g., their retirement plan based on years of service, investing tier, and current account provider), similar to what was done when major changes were proposed for health care benefits in recent years.

· It appears that there is insufficient awareness of employees of the changes that will be imposed on them by the proposed plan. For example, employees are likely to be unaware that under the proposal their accounts with providers such as Vanguard will be closed and reopened with Fidelity. Other employees may be unaware at this time that options in the proposed plan for TIAA/CREF are very limited.

· Faculty do not understand the impact of this proposal on employees with regard to TIAA/CREF, particularly going forward. TIAA/CREF has been the option selected by many employees and its treatment will be critical in their acceptance of whatever is adopted.

· We have questions about Tier 2 in particular, such as whether the set of funds proposed adequately meets the needs of employees. Specifically, we wonder whether more funds should be included in Tier 2.

· While the proposed plan may offer a larger number of investment options, certain investment patterns could lead to extremely high individual overhead costs relative to the current plan. In particular, an employee who is spreading his investments among four different transaction-fee funds in tier 3 will pay $4/mo + $5/fund per month, or $288/year in new fees, independent of how much is being invested.

· It appears there is insufficient awareness of the benefits for faculty members that will be obtained from the proposed management plan vis a vis the additional apparent cost to individuals. If the proposed plan is reducing costs for the institution, it is unclear why faculty members are each being asked to pay a new $4/month fee.

As a result of these concerns, we prepared a recommendation to the Small Executive Committee that requested that a decision not be put before the Board of Regents until March 2011 so that adequate time is available to fully understand and communicate the impact of the proposed plan and to make necessary changes and improvements.

Third Meeting (December 13, 2010)

First, we reviewed the status of discussions on changes to management of employee funds in defined contribution plans including improvements to the original proposal that have been suggested by the Faculty Senate Small Executive Committee. A question was raised as to whether employees would be better served if low cost target date funds from Vanguard were used in Tier 1 rather than target date funds from Fidelity, even if this would cause an increase in the cost of the contract with Fidelity. The committee strongly supported the addition of a Roth contribution option to the 403(b) and 457(b) plans, an option that has not yet been included in the proposal.

Second, we discussed what other issues should be a priority for the remainder of the year, although a continued focus on changes to retirement savings programs was felt to be the highest priority. Due to the growth rate of healthcare costs, it was felt that improvements to employee wellness should be our second priority. We agreed to study wellness offerings at other universities who have strong wellness programs, to identify potential wellness resources and offerings that could be made available at OU including through Health & Exercise Science, and to invite OU’s Health & Wellness Coordinator to discuss with us how to improve campus wellness resources and programs.

Fourth Meeting (January 31, 2011)

We discussed the current status of the overhaul of retirement savings programs management and noted the significant improvements that have been made to the plan as a result of both the work of this committee and the willingness of the Retirement Plans Management Committee to make changes to their original proposal. We decided to put forward a resolution requesting that the University provide Roth contribution options for the 403(b) and 457(b) voluntary retirement savings plans.

We discussed the serious state of health insurance cost increases. If the University does not have sufficient budgetary resources to absorb the 2012 cost increase, faculty compensation will be negatively impacted. At our next meeting we will be joined by Human Resources and will be seeking to understand the magnitude of the cost increases and exploring ways to change the plan structure such that future increases are lower. Annual cost increases in the high single digits both nationally and at the university level seem unsustainable even in the short term.

We discussed topics related to wellness, in preparation for our next meeting when Breion Rollins (Health & Wellness Coordinator) will join us to discuss wellness. Generally these topics can be grouped under exercise, dining, culture and incentives. Specific issues we discussed:

1. Smoke-free campus – what would be the cumulative reduction in health insurance costs if the campus were non-smoking, what incentives can be provided for nonsmokers

2. Murray Case Sells Swim Complex – limited hours, scheduling issues, usage by external clients during peak hours, and status of new pool

3. Huston-Huffman – the center is primarily for students and thus is not oriented towards faculty wellness and yet where else can faculty members go?

4. Bicycling – update on the bicycle plan (when will paths be built on campus, what is the status of the path that connects main campus with south campus), concern about the lack of paths/lanes in the city of Norman

5. Healthier food selections for campus events (relevant to most catered events with examples including advisory board meetings and graduate liaison meetings) and is symptomatic of the general culture where we live.

Last fall the poor usability of the benefits enrollment website was noted. One member of the committee has expertise in this area and volunteered to assist Human Resources to improve usability of the website. This was noted in the November 18, 2010 meeting of the Employee Benefits Committee.

Subsequent to this meeting, a member of the committee with expertise on website usability met with representatives of HR to provide feedback on the benefits enrollment website. HR is in the process of redesigning the website. The design of the HR information system precludes having a website recognize an individual’s role and display the options that are role appropriate. HR is working on tabbed pages for each role (Staff, Faculty, etc.), which should improve this situation, although the website will still not be able to customize itself at a finer granularity (for example, recognizing that a given employee doesn’t have a spouse and therefore does not need access to spousal options). The committee member and HR representatives discussed general usability principles as they are applied to this particular domain. The FWC committee member offered to participate in the usability testing of the new site.

Fifth Meeting (February 28, 2011)

The focus of this meeting was on healthcare, with time given to discussing the longer-term issue of wellness as well as more immediate issues related to annual renewal and higher plan costs. Our guests were Julius Hilburn (Associate Vice President & Chief Human Resources Officer), Nick Kelly (Assistant Director of Human Resources), and Breion Rollins (Health & Wellness Coordinator).

OU’s wellness program was almost nonexistent two years ago but has been expanding under the leadership of Breion Rollins. It is our hope that the scope of programs and participation continues to increase in future years. Many faculty members are not aware of current programs. We discussed mechanisms for improving the dissemination of information to faculty members about wellness programs, resources and incentives. It was felt that multiple channels of communication are needed – email, website, flyers, and word of mouth. The committee suggested the appointment of ‘wellness ambassadors’ in each unit who would provide a personal and direct means of dissemination to each unit based on periodic information updates provided to them by the OU wellness program. We also discussed mechanisms for advertising wellness within OU, such as on login pages for Ozone and other OU websites. We discussed improvements to the layout of the Healthy Sooners website home page, tweaks to a recently printed one-page flyer listing wellness programs, the need to use ou.edu rather than ouhsc.edu addresses when communicating to the Norman campus faculty, as well as other details.

Increased healthcare expenditures are resulting in increased costs for employees and increased interest in the breakdown of expenditures. In 2012, OU healthcare costs might increase by several percent. In previous years employees have been asked to absorb about half of the increase – thus the increase for 2012 could have a very significant impact on take-home pay and would be occurring during a period of several consecutive years when no cost of living increases in salaries have been made. We had an abbreviated discussion on incentives to employees that would reduce healthcare costs and on alternative plan structures that are under consideration for 2012, which would be intended to reduce the increase in cost.

As healthcare costs are apportioned among various groups, some facts to keep in mind are:

· The monthly cost of healthcare for employees/retirees are:

· Active PPO: $433.70

· Pre-65 PPO: $654.52

· Medicare: $311.33

· Retirees, both pre-65 and post-65, do not pay any portion of their monthly premium for their healthcare.

· Active employees are paying an increasing amount of their monthly healthcare premiums. Pre-65 retirees currently do not pay any of their monthly premiums, even though pre-65 retirees are on the same plan as active employees.

· Per national and state figures, the average additional cost of healthcare for a smoker is about $1500 per year. Currently, nonsmoking and smoking employees pay the same healthcare premium.

Through an email dialogue we provided feedback on process issues and coverage issues related to Long Term Disability. We requested that better summary information be given to participants during the enrollment process about the LTD coverage, and we listed some specific items to include in that information that we thought would help employees evaluate the attractiveness of the LTD coverage. It was not clear that any changes would be made in response to our concerns.

Sixth Meeting (April 25, 2011)

Amy Davenport (Director of Fitness and Recreation) joined us to talk about improving access to the Murray Case Sells Swim Complex for faculty, staff and students during the academic year. Two outside entities have contracted in previous years to use the pool from 3:20pm to 6:30pm. This time period is ‘prime time’ for many swimmers, yet accommodating these groups has meant that zero lap swim lanes have been available for members of the OU community. The capacity of the current pool is inadequate to simultaneously accommodate both of the outside entities as well as OU faculty, staff and students, and compromises will be needed until a new pool is constructed. The committee asked that adjustments be made to provide a better balance of access to the pool for members of the OU community during prime time hours in the academic year.

Julius Hilburn (Associate Vice President & Chief Human Resources Officer) and Nick Kelly (Assistant Director of Human Resources) joined us to continue our discussion about health insurance issues.

First, we reviewed an outline of a proposal for retiree medical that improves upon the prior proposal while still satisfying the original set of guiding principles. Reaction by the committee to the proposal was positive. It is simpler and more equitable, assuming changes are needed to ensure the retiree medical benefit remains sustainable into the future.

Second, we discussed how the employee healthcare plan could provide incentives to encourage healthy behavior. We highlighted the need for more pervasive communication on campus about wellness. One suggestion was to increase awareness of walking paths on campus and to label them with mile markers.

Third, an RFP for Long Term Disability has been issued. OU will ask for improved summary communications that can be provided during enrollment so that employees can be better informed about the features and limitations of the coverage they are selecting.

[1] Note that at the time this list was created, the original proposal defined three investing tiers. It now has four tiers. Tier 2 was split into Tier 2 and Tier 3 as a result of item 8 above, and the brokerage window Tier 3 is now called Tier 4.

Membership

Table of Contents

1. Membership

2. Summary of Accomplishments

3. Improvements to Retirement Savings Programs

3.1 Summary of FWC Involvement

3.2 Summary of Improvements Made

1) Tier 1: Include index-based Vanguard Target Date funds (replace or augment the actively managed Fidelity Freedom funds).

2) Tier 2 (now Tier 2 and 3): Include a larger number of asset classes (preferably represented with index funds when available).

3) Tier 2 (now Tier 2 and 3): Better transparency of criteria and better mechanism for incorporating employee input into selection of Tier 2 (now 2 and 3) funds.

4) Tier 3 (now Tier 4): Waive $75 fee for all Tier 3 (now 4) funds at transition (not just for one fund) so that employees can maintain current holdings.

5) Tier 3 (now Tier 4): Do a better job communicating the availability of ETFs (note that these are not available in 403(b)).

6) Recordkeeping: OU to absorb $4/month fee (eliminate fee charged to employees) since currently there is no per person fee charged by OU for recordkeeping.

7) Recordkeeping: Develop a plan to add Roth contribution options for 403(b) and 457(b) plans, with these hopefully being available by January 2012.

8) Tier 2: Place Index funds into a separate tier from Actively managed funds

4. Resolution on Roth Contribution Option

5. Resolution on Wellness

5.1 Background

5.2 Area 1: University Employee Wellness Report Card

Facilities and Environment for Wellness

Programs for Wellness

Incentives for Wellness

5.3 Area 2: Tobacco-free / Smoke-free Campus

5.4 Area 3: Incentives for Healthy Behavior

5.5 Area 4: Healthy Eating Options

6. Meeting Summaries

First Meeting (September 20, 2010)

Second Meeting (October 25, 2010)

Third Meeting (December 13, 2010)

Fourth Meeting (January 31, 2011)

Fifth Meeting (February 28, 2011)

Sixth Meeting (April 25, 2011)