ANNUAL REPORTS

2011-12

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 2012

---

Academic Programs Council (norman)

2011-12 Annual Report

Submitted by Jerry Crain, Chair

Academic Programs Council (APC) is chartered to be comprised of nine faculty appointees, four student appointees and four ex-officio, non-voting members. Faculty members participating on the Council during Academic Year 2012 (AY12) are listed in Table 1. Throughout AY12, 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 (Tuesdays in the Fall, and Fridays in the Spring) in Buchanan Hall. The transition to entirely paperless enabled Council’s ability to again manage the spring rush in which nominally 80% of the program and course proposals are submitted. A total of 66 and 751, respectively, were processed in AY12. Business for the year was completed with only two proposals left ion the table (one Certificate and one Minor), both awaiting response to APC feedback.

Table 1: Faculty appointed to Academic Programs Council, AY12. 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	2011-2012
Karen Hayes-Thumann	Art & Art History	Courses Chair	Faculty Senate	2011-2014
George Cusack	Expository Writing Program	Courses	Faculty Senate	2011-2013
Lee Fithian	Architecture	Programs	Faculty Senate	2010-2012
Mitchell Smith*	Political Science	Courses	President	2010-2013
Al Schwarzkopf	Management Info Science	Programs Chair	President	2010-2013
Lesley Rankin-Hill	Anthropology	Programs	President	2011-2014
Sean O’Neil	Anthropology	Programs	Faculty Senate	2009-2012
Scott Williams	Architecture	Courses	Faculty Senate	2011-2014

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).

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 and was instrumental in distributing and manipulating the electronic data through the various steps from the proposal stage to forwarding with recommendation from the Council. APC did not have benefit of student representation on the Council this year.

APC now operates fully under a paperless procedure. D2L and Course Leaf sites in combination provide APC members with all the material required to review, manage and recommend course and program proposals for approval each month. Forwarded proposals are notably more consistent in format and content with this system. Communications between the Council and those making proposals are greatly improved by all materials being in electronic format. This year, we added an archival section to D2L to retain data from (up to) the prior 2 years.

Electronic review of proposals simplified APC operation and allowed greater numbers of proposals to be given proper service during peak (Spring) months. Table 2 (next page) shows the AY11 and month-to-month proposal requests to the Council. This year’s activity shows a 17% increase in the number of course proposals completed complemented by a 30% decrease in program proposals with respect to last year (AY11).

The College of Arts and Sciences continued their nominal pace of 30% of course and program proposals. Activities with the College of Architecture were significant this year as the college upgraded its advanced degree programs per their announced plans from last year. Liberal Studies contributed some 15% of the course proposals as they aligned their courses with new areas of interest/emphasis. Program proposals for AY11 were very similar to AY10 in both quantity and distribution among colleges.

Table 2: AY12 Proposals received by APC for Courses [C] (751) and Programs [P] (66) showing monthly details, summaries by College, and totals compared to AY11

Colleges	Oct. 2011		Nov. 2011		Dec. 2011		Feb. 2012		Mar. 2012		Apr. 2012		May 2012		June 2012		Total AY 2012		Total AY 2011
	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P	C	P
Academic Affairs																			0	0
Architecture	2	1		2	68	5	11		1			2	1				83	10	0	1
Arts & Sciences			45	3	9		177	12		2	16	5	1	1			248	23	193	33
Atmospheric & Geog. Sciences			1				4			2	6	5	3	2			14	9	29	7
Business			2				1		4		27	2	28	3			62	5	39	9
CCE			1						2	1							3	1	3	1
Earth & Energy	1		4			1	6						1				12	1	16	4
Education	1		19	1			8	2	9	3	11		3				51	6	88	5
Engineering	13		12				14		4	3	11	2	3	2			57	7	32	12
Fine Arts			15				9		3		61	2	5				93	2	38	2
Graduate																			1	4
Honors																			0	0
International & Area Studies							10										10		13	7
Journalism																			4	7
Law										1								1	0	2
Liberal Studies	1		8				11		27		69		2				118		180	5
University College										1								1	1	0
University-wide																			0	1
AY12 TOTAL REQUESTS	18	1	107	6	77	6	251	14	50	13	201	18	47	8			751	66
AY11 Requests	71	10	18	2	19	4	401	24	26	17	19	29	78	13	5	1			637	100

This year again saw an increase in the number of proposals for Minors. Thirteen proposals were for addition or modification of Minors. Certificate proposals were not significant this year (1), after a flurry of submittals last year. Procedures and benchmarks are now in place with the Council to assure consistency in proposals recommended for approval under both of these special offerings.

APC members voted at the May 3 meeting to elect Professor Karen Hayes-Thumann as Council Chair for AY13. Dr. Crain will retire from University at the end of AY12. Prof. Al Schwarzkopf will continue to chair the Policy and Program Subcommittee, and Prof. Lee Fithian will chair the Course and Curriculum Subcommittee in AY13.

---

athletics Council

2011-12 Annual Report

Submitted by Emily D. Johnson, Chair

The Athletics Council met five times in 2011-2012. Meeting dates were October 4, November 15, February 24, April 5, and June 14.

2011-2012 Athletics Council membership:

Faculty members:  Susan Hahn, Jack Kasulis, Craig Hofford, Penny Hopkins, Emily Johnson, Charles Kimball, Larry Regens, and Francene Weatherby.

Staff Members:  Clay Wesley and Patrick Hutton

Student Members:  UOSA – Paul Dollahite, OUHSC – Taylor Parker

Student-athletes – Eric Bailey and Lisa Jett

Alumni:  Sandy Kinney and Lindy Ritz.

Ex Officio:  Joseph Castiglione (Athletic Director), Connie Dillon (Faculty Athletics Representative to the NCAA).

Athletics Department:  Jason Leonard (Executive Director, Athletics Compliance), Nicki Moore (Senior Associate Athletics Director, Academics), Larry Naifeh (Executive Associate Athletics Director), Luther Lee (Associate Athletic Director, Chief Financial Officer), Brandon Martin (Sr. Associate Athletic Director, Administration).

Secretary:  Wendy Plummer (Administrative Assistant).

October 4

At the October 4 meeting, Connie Dillon provided an orientation to new Council members and explained the functions of the Council and its Subcommittees.

Professor Regens presented the Fiscal Integrity report for FY 2011.  He reported that the department had again balanced its budget without benefit of state appropriations and had contributed to University general fund through the academic enhancement fee of $5 per football ticket sold, generating approximately $2 million toward the University general fund in FY 11. Coupled with the annual contribution to the University libraries and other indirect revenues, the Athletic Department has provided $9.2 million dollars in support of academic programs at the University over the past eight years. Professor Regens noted that another significant accomplishment of the Athletic Department in FY 11 was paying off the Working Capital Loan eleven years ahead of schedule.

Professor Regens also reviewed the FY12 budget and explained that it is conservative in nature and may change depending on bowl game revenues and expenses and other developments that may arise. It is designed to allow the department to continue to maintain a balanced budget as the year progresses. He was pleased to report that the department was making significant capital investments in women’s sports, which includes plans for a new boat house in Oklahoma City in support of our Women’s Rowing team, adding that construction of an on campus rowing practice facility will begin next year.

Mr. Castiglione reviewed with the Council matters related to Conference realignment and assured members that to the extent it is possible he will inform Council Members of any changes related to realignment. He reminded the Council of the department’s commitment to full transparency and reported on his recent meetings with the Faculty Senates on both the Norman and HSC campuses.

Mr. Castiglione also discussed the ground-breaking of the new Sooner Housing Center at the corner of Jenkins and Lindsey Streets, projected to be completed in fall 2013. The new 380 bed facility is a $75 million project that will be financed with private donations and owned and operated by the Athletic Department. By NCAA rules, the facility will house non-athletes with a 51/49 ratio of non-athletes to athletes. The other Athletic Department owned facilities, Jones, Jefferson and the dining hall, will be torn down and a full evaluation is expected relative to the future of Bud Wilkinson Hall.

Finally, in the time allotted for new business, the Council discussed questions that had arisen regarding recent appointments and moved to create an Ad Hoc Committee to draft recommendations that might be sent forward to appointing bodies and individuals with an eye to minimizing potential conflicts of interest on the Athletics Council and insuring that all members are carefully vetted, fully informed, and able to perform their responsibilities.

November 5

At the November 15 meeting, Charles Kimball, the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Appointments, submitted this body’s recommendations to the Council. After several minor changes, they were approved. These recommendations are attached. The Athletics Council feels strongly that in future appointing bodies and individuals should adhere to these guidelines in making new appointments to the Athletics Council.

· If the appointing body has a nominating committee charged with making appointments to the Athletics Council, as is the case for the Norman and HSC Faculty and Staff Senates, then sitting members of that nominating committee should not be considered for appointment to the Athletics Council.

· The Council feels that the following circumstances should absolutely disqualify nominees from appointment:

1) The nominee was cited in an NCAA major violation or multiple secondary violations;

2) The nominee benefits financially as a direct or indirect result of business dealings connected with OU athletics;

3) The nominee is a sports agent or is personally connected to a sports agent, sports financial advisor, or runner;

4) The nominee is a current or former employee of the Athletics Department or a family member of a current Athletics Department employee.

· The Council has created a disclosure form (attached) that all nominees to the Council should complete. These completed forms should guide appointing bodies and individuals in their decisions. When an appointment is made, the appointing body should forward the new appointee’s completed disclosure form to the Chair of the Athletics Council. The Chair will then share this form with the Athletics Compliance Department.

· Additionally, the Council notes that service on the Athletics Council requires a significant time commitment. Appointing bodies and individuals should insure that nominees are willing and able to make this time commitment and that they are prepared to engage seriously in the Council’s work.

At the November meeting, Professor Penny Hopkins presented the Academic Integrity Subcommittee Report, which compared the academic qualifications of incoming student-athletes with the University student body as a whole. She described the NCAA’s academic progress measure (APR). She also explained how the calculation of the NCAA’s graduation success rate (GSR) differs from the federal graduation rate. She noted promising developments in terms of academic progress measures and also highlighted the fact that many student athletes who depart for professional careers before graduating are now choosing to return in future years to earn the credits they need to finish their degrees.

Eric Bailey and Lisa Jett, the Council’s two student athlete representatives, delivered the report of the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. They reported a series of concerns that have been voiced in student athlete satisfaction surveys and also in recent Student-Athlete Advisory Committee meetings. Although in most respects student-athletes are very happy at OU, some report trouble in balancing the scheduling requirements of their sports and their academic coursework. Student-athletes perceive some majors as inaccessible because key requirements are only offered in the afternoons and hence coincide with mandatory practices. They also sometimes feel as though they are at a disadvantage in the classroom because of the classes they miss as a result of competition. Even though these absences are excused, instructors sometimes do not offer athletes the opportunity to make up in-class quizzes or to earn the extra points that other students have accrued with clickers. The Academic Integrity Subcommittee and Academic Support Services in the Athletics Department hope to address these issues in the future.

February 24

At our February 24^th meeting, we heard a detailed report on student-athlete health and safety. Scott Anderson, OU’s head trainer, spoke about efforts to insure that OU student-athletes receive the best possible medical care. He passed out tables that showed which trainers and physicians staffed each sport. For all sports except golf, which has a relatively low injury risk, a dedicated trainer attends daily practices as well as all home and away competitions. Primary care physicians hold regular clinic hours in the Freede Center for Athletic Medicine. Orthopedic surgeons hold weekly clinics in the same space; Psychiatrists and Cardiologists are available biweekly at the Center. These on-site clinics make it convenient for students to receive care in the case of illness, injury, or other health concerns. Team physicians routinely attend home competitions and attend away competitions by invitation.

Mr. Anderson noted that the Athletics Department has updated its policies regarding insurance coverage for non-scholarship athletes to formalize practices regarding insurance coverage for walk-on athletes that had emerged in recent years on an ad hoc basis. In the past, coaches had applied to the Athletic Director for a walk-on athlete to be covered by the Department’s medical insurance policy as an exception, and such exceptions were routinely granted. Now all athletes regardless of their scholarship status are automatically covered under the Athletics Department’s medical policy, which is a form of secondary insurance coverage: if the student-athlete has other coverage, that other coverage counts as the primary policy.

As part of this same report, Larry Naifeh, the Executive Associate Athletics Director, spoke about the Athletics Department’s travel policies for both student-athletes and for coaches. He noted that OU has developed detailed standards for the kinds of planes that can be used to transport athletes and staff traveling on official business and also for pilot qualifications. The Department refuses donations of flying time if the plane does not meet its standards. When teams are traveling by bus, the Department makes sure that drivers are not working more than a fixed number of hours.

At this same meeting, Professor Larry Regens presented the Fiscal Integrity Subcommittee’s report on External Operations.  He reported that the department had maintained its status as one of the country’s few entirely self-sustaining Division I athletics programs and was continuing to contribute to the University general fund through the academic enhancement fee of $5 per football ticket sold. He also talked about on-going capital investments, including, most significantly, the construction of the new Sooner Housing Center, Headington Hall.

Professor Regens noted that the Athletics Department had scored a number of key fund-raising successes in 2010-2011 despite the difficult economy. It set a record of 10,405 members contributing to the Sooner Club. All told, these members donated $19.38 million to support scholarships, capital projects, and debt service. A gift from OU alumnus Tim Headington provided $10 million towards the construction of the new Sooner Housing Center. The Athletics Department also generated $3.78 million through licensing revenues and $7.9 million through the Sooner Sports Properties agreement.

Goals for 2011-2012, according to Professor Regens, include the launch of a television network with a major distribution partner, maintaining the ongoing sellout streak in football, and considering new agreements in the areas of licensing and ticket sales. The Department also hopes to build on its successful efforts to use social media to reach out to fans.

Sandy Kinney and Jason Leonard delivered the report of the Governance and Compliance Subcommittee. They detailed all the steps that the Compliance Department takes to make sure that OU is in compliance with NCAA policies. As Jason Leonard noted, the scope of activities that Compliance needs to monitor is constantly expanding. The Compliance Department carefully tracks infractions occurring around the country to try to stay ahead of potential problems. In recent years the amount of energy the department has devoted to monitoring the social media pages of student-athletes has increased dramatically in response to problems at other schools. It is, however, not possible to foresee or prevent every problem. The NCAA penalizes schools even when the institution could not reasonably be expected to know about a violation and had no means to prevent it. Mr. Leonard reminded the Council that the penalty imposed on the OU basketball program this year stemmed from the actions of a single former student-athlete who had accepted a loan of $3,000 from a Florida financial advisor before coming to campus and also from the failure of one former assistant basketball coach to report the violation once he learned of it. He noted that the Compliance Department will continue to do its best to insure that OU remains in compliance with all NCAA policies and to avoid future infractions.

Mr. Castiglione and Connie Dillon both spoke briefly with the Council about current trends in NCAA governance and also about the changes to rules governing student-athlete scholarships. These include a move to allow universities to offer multi-year scholarships to student athletes as opposed to renewing their scholarships each year and also efforts to provide student-athletes with a modest stipend to defray some of the costs of university attendance that are not covered by their scholarships. Mr. Castiglione noted that these proposals have been controversial. The proposal to provide a stipend failed due to an override by the NCAA membership. Multi-year scholarships will be allowed. The Athletics Department is still weighing how best to proceed given this new option.

April 5:

At the April meeting of the Athletics Council the Academic Integrity Subcommittee distributed its recommendations for Student-Athlete Awards. This list was unanimously approved by the Council.

The Council also heard a report on the new Sooner Jr. program by Athletics Department staff members. This new program uses cartoon depictions of Boomer and Sooner along with the acronym F.A.N.S – fitness fun, academics, nutrition and sportsmanship to inspire children and encourage lifelong learning and activity. To date, the program has been performed at 11 schools throughout the state reaching roughly 6,500 children. In the future, the Department hopes to expand the initiative statewide and to add a coach’s fitness challenge and a reading challenge.

The Athletics Council’s Nominating Committee, which was comprised of the out-going Chair, Emily Johnson, and the in-coming Chair, Charles Kimball, presented the nominees for the position of Chair-Elect for the 2012-2013 academic year to Council members. It was agreed that each nominee would provide a one-paragraph biography to the Council and that a vote would be conducted by email in advance of the June meeting.

In his report to the Council, Joe Castiglione noted that the construction of the Headington hall remained on schedule and that the Department expects a balanced budget for the current fiscal year.

In her report to the Council, OU’s Faculty Athletics Representative Connie Dillon reported that some faculty members had concerns about Athletic Department staff proctoring the makeup exams of student-athletes. Senior Associate Athletics Director Dr. Nicki Moore explained that the department prefers that makeup exam testing is done at a certified testing center, but on occasion the centers are not available and a faculty member is not able to personally proctor the test. The Council discussed developing a more formal tiered system and referred the matter to the Academic Integrity Subcommittee so that they could discuss the matter in detail and bring policy recommendations back to the Council in the fall.

June 14

At the June 14 meeting, the Council heard a report from the Fiscal Integrity Subcommittee that detailed revenues and expenditures for FY 2012 and outlined budgetary plans for the next year. Dr. Jack Kasulis, who was standing in for the Chair of the Subcommittee, Dr. Larry Regens, noted that the Athletics Department continues to budget conservatively and remains one of only seven programs in the country that continues to operate on a balanced budget without the help of state appropriations, university allocations, or student fees. Moreover, the OU Athletics Department generated $2 million in support for academics on campus this year through the $5 academic enhancement fee which is added to the price of every football ticket.

Dr. Kasulis also described a number of audit reports that the Subcommittee reviewed, including a report on whether the institution met NCAA-mandated minimum attendance standards for football, an hourly payroll operational audit, which focused on procedures and internal controls, and a compliance audit, which focused on NCAA compliance issues. In all cases, OU was deemed in good shape. The Hourly Payroll Operational Audit did recommend some changes to the controls over appointing temporary employees. These recommendations were implemented.

Dr. Kasulis noted that Athletics submits monthly financial statements to the University CFO and adheres to all University financial, purchasing, and budget procedures. It is included in the University’s annual audit.

At the conclusion of the report, Larry Naifeh described capital projects in process or in development, including the Field House renovation project, the development of new facilities for rowing, plans for Stage IV stadium renovations, and work on Headington Hall.

Lindy Ritz, the Chair of the Gender Equity and Sportsmanship Subcommittee, delivered a report on Title IX compliance that drew on the work of an outside consultant hired to monitor the Athletics Department’s programming, activities, and financial aid distribution to insure that they meet the standards outlined in this law. Lindy Ritz noted that OU remains fully compliant with Title IX based on satisfaction of two of three safe harbors under the “interest and abilities framework”: it provides male and female students with participation opportunities “in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollment” and it fully and effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of prospective female student athletes. Lindy Ritz noted that the amount of financial aid distributed to male and female student athletes is essentially equal and that the Department takes great care to insure that the facilities, goods, and services provided to female student athletes equal those offered to male student athletes.

Connie Dillon, OU’s Faculty Athletics Representative, presented to the Council with a series of proposals for updating both sections of the Faculty Handbook that pertain to excused absences and make-up exams and Board of Regents Policies pertaining to the Council. She noted that some discrepancies existed between these documents and current Athletics Department policies. With an eye to clarifying these issues, streamlining the operations of the Athletics Council itself, and also improving oversight over athletics, it was suggested the Council recommend a series of changes to the Board of Regents. These include:

• Providing clearer and more consistent guidelines regarding how much notice student-athletes should give faculty regarding absences and also procedures for make-up exams.
• Clarifying what constitutes a “Provost-approved university sponsored event.”
• Clarifying the responsibilities of Athletics Council Subcommittees in Regents Policy. Shifting responsibility for reviewing athletic competition schedules to insure that they do not result in more that ten full missed class days from the Gender Equity and Sportsmanship Subcommittee to the Academic Integrity Subcommittee.
• Lengthening the term of Athletics Council Members from 3 to 4 years. This last change was proposed with an eye to providing better oversight. It takes time for Council members to gain an understanding of Athletics Department operations. It was felt they could offer better oversight and contribute more if their term was slightly longer.

Council members opted to table these recommendations until the fall so that more time could be given to considering the proposal. A copy of these recommendations is attached.

Other events at the June meeting included a brief report by Joe Castiglione that focused on Conference income distribution and the introduction of the winner of the election for the Chair-Elect position for next year: Dr. Larry Regens. Council Members also bid farewell to Connie Dillon, who is retiring and stepping down from her post as Faculty Athletics Representative effective July 1.

In general, the Council feels that the OU Athletics Department is well run and continues to make a positive commitment to university life. The Athletics Department is committed to being transparent in its operations and welcomes faculty involvement and oversight.

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

Recommendations on Appointments to the Athletics Council

Background: Regent’s Policy charges the Athletics Council with the responsibility of advising the President and Athletics Director on athletics policy matters. As such, the Athletics Council is invited and encouraged to make recommendations directly to the President regarding athletics policies and programs. Given the increasing scrutiny of intercollegiate athletics, the Athletics Council asserts that it would be prudent for the University to develop clear guidelines on appointments to the Athletics Council that will minimize the potential for conflicts of interest on the Council and insure that Council members are carefully vetted, fully informed and able to perform their responsibilities. With this in mind, the Athletics Council has developed this set of guidelines that future appointing bodies and individuals should follow when making appointments to the Council.

Vetting Procedures:

• If the appointing body has a nominating committee charged with making appointments to the Athletics Council, as is the case for the Norman and HSC Faculty and Staff Senates, then sitting members of that nominating committee should not be considered for appointment to the Athletics Council. The Athletics Council believes that this restriction will help to insure that all nominees for appointment to the Athletics Council receive equal consideration and that potential conflicts of interest and biases are fully explored.

Conflict of Interest:

• The Athletics Council asks that appointing bodies and individuals require all potential appointees to complete the attached disclosure form, which is meant to guide the appointment process. The Council feels strongly that the following circumstances should disqualify nominees from appointment:

1) The nominee was cited in an NCAA major violation or multiple secondary violations;

2) The nominee benefits financially as a direct or indirect result of business dealings connected with OU athletics;

3) The nominee is a sports agent or is personally connected to a sports agent, sports financial advisor, or runner;

4) The nominee is a current or former employee of the Athletics Department or a family member of a current Athletics Department employee.

• If the answers the nominee provides to questions on the disclosure form raise other concerns about a possible conflict of interest, then the Council requests that the nominating body or individual consult with the Faculty Athletics Representative and/or the Chair of the Athletics Council on the appropriateness of the appointment. A copy of each appointee’s disclosure form should be submitted to the Chair of the Athletics Council at the time the appointment is made. The Council Chair will then share these forms with the Athletics Compliance Department.

Commitment to Service

• Service on the Athletics Council requires a significant time commitment, including four to five meetings each year plus service on at least one subcommittee with commensurate meetings. Appointing bodies and individuals should insure that nominees are willing and able to make this time commitment and that they are prepared to engage seriously in the Council’s work.

DISCLOSURE FORM

For Nominees to the OU Athletics Council

1. Do you have an interest in an entity that does business with the Athletics Department? If so, please explain.

2. Have you ever been interviewed for or involved in an NCAA secondary or major violation? If so, please explain.

3. Do you have an interest in or do you know anyone (agent, financial planner, runner) who has an interest in profiting directly from relationships with collegiate or professional athletes?

4. Are you now or have you ever been an employee of the OU Athletics Department?

5. Are you a family member of a current employee of the OU Athletics Department?

6. Do you now or have you ever gambled on a collegiate sporting event? If so, when and what sport?

7. Are there any other issues or circumstances that you or others might perceive as a potential conflict of interest if you were appointed to the Athletics Council? If so, please explain.

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

Proposed Policy Changes: Regents’ Policy, Faculty Handbook, Athletics Department

Attendance and missed exam policies governing student-athletes may be found in three separate policies. These include: 1) Regents Policy; 2) Faculty Handbook; and 3) Athletic Department. As a result of the multiple policies, some discrepancies and issues have emerged. Although not exhaustive, these issues include:

1) The nature of academic oversight of competition schedules and other athletic events that impact class attendance, i.e., Chief Academic Officer and Athletics Council need to be more actively involved in decisions concerning and oversight over class attendance and missed exams.

2) To clarify what is considered a “Provost-approved university-sponsored event” and the process for determining which activities qualify.

3) To clarify student-athlete responsibility to notify faculty and providing adequate notice and faculty obligations if this notice is not provided.

4) Distinguishing between notifying faculty about a Provost-approved event versus an athletic department excused absence, i.e., illness or family emergency, etc.

Below you will find the current policies followed by proposed changes to those policies, which are intended to address the issues and discrepancies discussed above.

Proposed recommendations for the Athletics Council include modifications in term of appointment for faculty and alumni to provide for more meaningful oversight, changes in Council subcommittee duties to more accurately reflect actual responsibilities, and inclusion of selection criteria and conflict of interest policy for council membership.

I. Proposed Changes

a. Regents Policy

6.1.7 (new number) EQUITY AND SPORTSMANSHIP SUBCOMMITTEE

The Council and its Equity and Sportsmanship Subcommittee annually shall review policies related to gender equity and minority issues and sportsmanship and make suggestions or recommendations to the Council.

6.1.9 – COMPOSITION OF THE ATHLETICS COUNCIL

Membership	Method of Appointment	Term
6 Norman Campus Faculty	No Change	3 years 4 years
2 HSC Faculty Members	No Change	3 years 4 years
2 Alumni Members	No Change	2 years 4 years

6.1.11 – CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Insert Council Recommendations here

6.2.8—ATHLETICS SCHEDULES

The President and the Director of Athletics shall have authority to approve schedules for all intercollegiate athletics events.

6.3.7—POLICY ON MISSED CLASS TIME

A. No intercollegiate athletics events will be scheduled without the advance approval of the Director of Athletics (or the Director’s designee(s)) as follows:

1. Athletics events include the following: All events approved as per Regents’ Policy 6.2.8, NCAA and Conference postseason championship events and with documented satisfactory academic performance, established national championship events (including junior national championships); the Olympic Games (including specific competition, e.g., Olympic Trials from which participants may directly qualify for the Olympic Games); Pan American Games; World Championships; World Cup and World University Games. 

2. No intercollegiate athletics event is permitted during scheduled final examination periods with exceptions for Conference and NCAA post-season competition. Practice sessions, including strength and conditioning, shall be limited during examination periods, unless the participating student athletes have completed all their scheduled examinations.

3. No team schedule or individual schedule will be approved if it provides that the team or individual will miss more than the equivalent of ten full class days in any semester, computed as follows:

(a) when a competition or travel associated with it is scheduled to commence prior to 1:00 p.m., one full day will be considered missed;

(b) when commencement is after 1:00 p.m., no class days are considered missed because of the way in which student-athletes schedule their classes during their competitive seasons;

(c) when the return travel from a competition is scheduled to terminate on any day after 1:00 a.m. but before 7:00 a.m., one-half day will be considered missed; and

(d) when the return travel is scheduled to terminate after 7:00 a.m., one full day will be considered missed.

4. In the event that a team schedule or individual schedule will cause a student-athlete to miss more than ten full class days, exceptions to Section A, subsection 3 may be permitted in consultation with the Faculty Athletics Representative for good cause, with justification documented, and satisfactory academic performance by the individual(s) involved.

5. In a questionable situation, the Director of Athletics consult with the Athletics Council.

B. The Director of Athletics or his or her designee will report to the Athletics Council at its first meeting of each academic year on exceptions under Paragraph A, above, occurring during the previous academic year.

C. Attention will be given to all the sports schedules and the worksheets showing time away from campus for all sports. Specifically, the worksheets will show the opposing team or name of the contest, the city and state where it took place, and the date(s) (and starting time, if appropriate). In addition, the worksheet will show clearly each instance in which one-half or a whole day of classes was missed. Any issue(s) regarding full compliance with this policy will be brought to the attention of the Council as a whole.

D. No class time shall be missed for practice activities except in conjunction with away-from-home competition.

E. Student-athletes are responsible for arranging with their instructors for making up any course work missed while participating in athletics events, including making arrangements with their instructors for making up missed tests and examinations in accordance with faculty policies established by the faculty as set forth in the Norman Campus Faculty Handbook.

6.1.7—ATHLETIC COMPETITION

The Council and its Equity and Sportsmanship Academic Integrity and Student-Athlete Welfare Subcommittee annually shall review intercollegiate sports competition and make suggestions or recommendations as appropriate, on facilities, scheduling, recruiting, rule changes or other matters.

6.1.3—ACADEMIC MATTERS

The Council annually shall review the admission and academic performance of student-athletes. Reports to the Council and/or its Academic Integrity and Student Welfare Subcommittee will include information on admissions, retention, graduations, academic performance, and academic services to student-athletes including counseling, tutoring, and the monitoring of classroom attendance and grades. The Council shall report its findings and recommendations to Athletics Department personnel and to the President.

b. Faculty Handbook

4.9 MAKE-UP EXAMINATIONS (OTHER THAN FINAL) DUE TO UNIVERSITY- SPONSORED ACTIVITIES OR LEGALLY REQUIRED ACTIVITIES

The following guidelines have been approved by the Faculty Senate and the UOSA to aid the faculty in determining a policy for make-up exams (other than final examinations) in cases of absences due to participation in University-sponsored or legally required activities. (For the policy on final examinations, see Section 4.7.)

Only Provost-approved university-sponsored activities such as scholarly competitions, fine arts performances, intercollegiate athletics competitions and academic field trips, and legally required activities, such as emergency military service and jury duty, are covered by these guidelines. Faculty, if given notice two class periods or one week (whichever is less) before an exam (including final exams with two weeks notice) or quiz (excluding pop quizzes), should make every effort to find a reasonable accommodation by (a) giving a makeup exam, an early exam, or quiz; (b) changing the exam schedule; or (c) dropping the exam or quiz and increasing the weight of another exam or quiz or other agreed upon approaches acceptable to the instructor and the student , or (d) by identifying a certified testing center. Students missing an exam on account of jury duty must be allowed an accommodation.

NOTICE: If the student and the faculty member cannot agree, normal appeal procedures (faculty to director/chair to college dean to Senior Vice President and Provost) are available to the student and can be followed.

For information about what activities are Provost-approved or how to have activities approved, contact the Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost.

4.7 FINAL EXAMINATION REGULATIONS

If a final examination is given, no faculty member is authorized to depart from the published examination schedule for either a class or an individual without approval, as follows: An examination for the entire class may be rescheduled only with the approval of the Academic Regulations Committee. A request for such rescheduling should be addressed to the Chair of that committee and should carry the endorsement of the department and the dean concerned. Final examinations for a class outside the period set aside under University regulations for final examinations are prohibited. An examination may be rescheduled for an individual student only when required by law, as in the case of jury duty, or in emergencies such as illness of the student, a serious illness or death in the immediate family, or an unavoidable academic conflict of compelling importance, including a conflict due to Regents’ approved exceptions for Conference and NCAA post-season intercollegiate athletics competition (as per section 6.3.7.1 of Regents’ policy). For such a conflict to be considered as grounds for rescheduling a final examination, the activity must be directly related to the student's academic work in the University or a Provost- approved University-sponsored event. Such rescheduling must have the approval of the instructor or instructors concerned, the department chair or chairs concerned, and the dean of the college in which the student is enrolled and should be timed in such a way to avoid compromising the integrity of the examination (Note 1). Final Examination has been defined as follows: an examination that is comprehensive in nature or that accounts for a greater proportion of the final grade than an exam given during the semester.

4.19 CLASS ATTENDANCE

STUDENTS

Students are responsible for the content of courses in which they are enrolled. Specific policy concerning attendance requirements and announced and unannounced examinations is the responsibility of the individual instructor. Students have a responsibility to inform faculty prior to absences whenever possible. Faculty should make every effort to find a reasonable accommodation for students who miss class as a result of participation in Provost-approved University-sponsored activities or legally required activities such as emergency military service. Students missing class on account of jury duty must receive such an accommodation.

c. Revised Athletics Class Attendance Policy (2012)

The Athletics Class Attendance Policy approaches the issue differently, focusing primarily on the repercussions for the student-athlete who is not meeting their scholastic responsibilities. Thus, few changes are necessary to reconcile the Athletics Class Attendance Policy with the others discussed. Only if the other policies are amended, would the Athletics Policy be required to change, as it references both the Regents Policy and the Norman Faculty Handbook. Among the most significant differences are:

a) The two day notice requirement for student-athletes regarding missed class and missed exams should be changed to two class periods or one week (whichever is less) with the exception of a final examination which requires a minimum of two weeks notice (no exceptions).

b) Copying the Provost on all missed class notification as a result of Provost-approved University-sponsored activity.

c) Athletics policy should require a minimum of two weeks notice for any missed final examination which occurs as a result of NCAA post-season or conference competition.

d) Policy should include a statement that informs student-athletes that if notification regarding exams or missed class does not meet this policy, that faculty members and instructors are not obligated to provide an excuse as stipulated in the Faculty Handbook.

---

BUDGET Council (norman)

2011-12 Annual Report

Submitted by SUSAN HAHN, Chair

The Budget Council (Norman) is charged to recommend to and advise the President and other appropriate administrators on matters concerning fiscal policies and resources of the University. Its purpose is to provide on a continuing basis continuity and balance in budgetary planning and execution within the University. The Budget Council shall also report each semester to the Faculty Senate on matters concerning fiscal policies and resources of the University.

Membership

Ex-officio, nonvoting members:

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

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

Faculty Senate Appointees (3 year appointments):

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

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

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

Bruce Mason, Physics and Astronomy (2011-2014) – bmason@ou.edu, 325-3961 ext 36227

Staff Senate Appointees (3 year appointments):

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

Erin Wolfe, University Research Cabinet 2011-2014) – ewolfe@oui.edu , 325-3926

UOSA Appointments (1 year appointment):

1.

2.

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

Faculty:

1. Tom Woodfin, Landscape Architecture (2011-2014) – twoodfin@ou.edu, 325-2299

2.

Staff:

1.Craig Hayes, Recruitment/Development (2010-2013) – rchayes@ou.edu, 325-1221

Student:

1.

Meetings – The Budget Council meets on the third Monday of the Monday during the academic year. Meetings were held on September 19, October 17, November 21, December 19, no meeting on January due to Martin Luther King Day, Februarys 20, and March 19. The Budget Council has two more meetings scheduled – April 16 and May 21.

Speakers -

January – no meeting, MLK Holiday

Mon. Sept 19 - Linda Anderson – Director of OU Budget Office

Mark Jones – Associate Director OU Budget Office

Mon. Oct 19 - Glen Johnson – Chancellor and Chief Executive Officer for the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education

Mon. Nov 21 - Danny Hilliard – Vice President for Government Relations

Mon. Dec 19 - Chris Kuwitzky – Associate Vice President for Administration and Finance and Chief Financial Officer

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

Mon. Feb 20 – Joe Castiglione – Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics Programs and Director of Athletics

Mon. March 19 – Tripp Hall – Vice President for University Development

Kelvin Droegemeier – Vice President for Research

Mon. April 16 – Julius Hilburn – Associate Vice President for Human Resources

Guy Patton – President OU Foundation

Mon, May 21 – Dan Pullin – Vice President for Strategic Planning and Economic Development

Chris Kuwitzky – Associate Vice President for Administration and Finance and Chief Financial Officer

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

Budget Council Minutes

Monday, September 19, 2011

3:30-4:40pm

The meeting took place at the Provost’s Conference Room, first floor, Evans Hall. Those in attendance include the following members of the Council:

John Albert

Beth Gatewood

Susan Hahn

Bruce Mason

Tom Woodfin

Erin Wolfe

Missing:

Mike Bemben (conference)

Craig Hayes

Nick Hathaway (Regents meeting)

Nancy Mergler (Regents meeting)

Presidential Faculty appointee

Presidential student appointee

Two UOSA student appointees

Susan Hahn (Chair) called the meeting to order at 3:30pm.

1. Introduction of members

2. Speakers Linda Anderson, Director OU Budget Office and Mark Jones, Associate Director OU Budget office.

Linda reviewed the budget procedures with the Council. The total University budget is 810 million with the E&G budget at 43.5 million. The Budget Office was able to finish the 2010/2011 year with a zero deficit. She noted state revenues are p 18% from last year at this time. Linda explained that the Budget Office is always looking five years ahead and are more focused n years 2014, 2015 then current year.

Linda handed out 3 handouts to the Council: Office of State Finance - Income Tax Collection, FY 2012 Budget needs, FY 2013 Budget Needs.

Also discussed – trying to find ways the Budget Council could be more involved with the budget process.

3. New Business

- A quick review of the charge and purpose of the Budget Council and the Budget Guiding Principles approved by Faculty Senate

- Discussed several topics the Council could address this year:

1. Incentives for unites to develop courses and profit

2. Retail space in the Union, bringing in outside vendors, such as Clinque

Asked the council to be thinking of topics the Council could address. Linda stated it would be a good idea to get any reports to President Boren as soon as possible in January.

Meeting adjourned at 4:40PM

Budget Council Minutes

Monday, October 17, 2011

3:30-3:55pm

The meeting took place at the Provost’s Conference Room, first floor, Evans Hall. Those in attendance include the following members of the Council:

John Albert

Linda Anderson

Mike Bemben

Beth Gatewood

Susan Hahn

Craig Hayes

Bruce Mason

Nancy Mergler

Erin Wolfe

Missing:

Nick Hathaway

Tom Woodfin

Presidential Faculty appointee

Presidential student appointee

Two UOSA student appointees

Susan Hahn (Chair) called the meeting to order at 3:30pm.

1. Approved the September minutes

2. Introduced the guest speaker, Chancellor Glen Johnson, Oklahoma State Regents

Please see: http://okhighered.org/state-system/powerpoints/powerpoints.shtml

3. New Business

- A quick review of the charge and purpose of the Budget Council and the Budget Guiding Principles approved by Faculty Senate

- Discussed several topics the Council could address this year:

1. Incentives for unites to develop courses and profit

2. Retail space in the Union, bringing in outside vendors, such as Clinque

Asked the council to be thinking of topics the Council could address. Linda stated it would be a good idea to get any reports to President Boren as soon as possible in January.

Meeting adjourned at 4:40PM

Budget Council Minutes

Monday, November 21, 2011

3:35 – 5:15

The meeting took place at the Provost’s Conference Room, first floor, Evans Hall. Those in attendance include the following members of the Council:

John Albert

Mike Bemben

Susan Hahn

Erin Wolfe

Missing:

Linda Anderson

Beth Gatewood

Nick Hathaway

Craig Hayes

Mark Jones

Bruce Mason

Nancy Mergler

Tom Woodfin

Presidential Faculty appointee

Presidential student appointee

Two UOSA student appointees

Susan Hahn (Chair) called the meeting to order at 3:35pm.

1. Approved the October minutes

2. Introduced the guest speaker, Danny Hilliard, Vice President for Government Relations

Danny detailed his back ground in State Government. He served in the House of Representatives from 1990 to 2004 – chair of the Higher Education Committee from 1992- 1994, subcommittee chair of appropriations from 1995 to 2000, House Majority Leader from 2000 to 2002 and Speaker Pro Tempore 2002-2004.

Danny then discussed the overall higher education budget and the trending based on his experience. He shared with the Committee a draft budget data presented to the Governor and Chief of Staff, included numbers from the Board of Regents. See attached

3. Letter to Faculty from President Boren:

It was noted that the Council understood overall budget decisions were made by President Boren. The Council would remind the President of the Guiding Principles for Budgetary Actions passed by the OU Faculty Senate May 2010.

Susan Hahn expressed concerned, where were further cuts going to come from? How could the University and Faculty maintain their Research with further loss of Graduate Student hours.

Mike Bemben likened our budget cuts over several years to being cut like a butter knife as opposed to the California universities one grand cut to that of machete. When in fact our cuts over several years come close to schools on California’s one grand hack of 20 to 25%

4. Continuing Business:

The Council continued discussion regarding Council’s report to the President.

Mike Bemben suggested we look at the cost of to the University with the loss of the Graduate student hours. It was suggested the Council gather data from the Graduate Office and the Office of Research to determine how the budget cuts have effected faculty due to the loss of graduate student hours.

5. No New Business

Meeting adjourned at 5:15PM

Budget Council Minutes

Monday, December, 2011

3:35 – 4:15

The meeting took place at the Provost’s Conference Room, first floor, Evans Hall. Those in attendance include the following members of the Council:

John Albert

Linda Anderson

Mike Bemben

Beth Gatewood

Susan Hahn

Erin Wolfe

Missing:

Nick Hathaway

Craig Hayes

Mark Jones

Bruce Mason

Nancy Mergler

Tom Woodfin

Presidential Faculty appointee

Presidential student appointee

Two UOSA student appointees

Susan Hahn (Chair) called the meeting to order at 3:35pm.

1. Linda Anderson announced scheduled guest speakers Chris Kuwitzky, Vice President for Administration and Finance and Chief Financial Officer and Nick Hathaway, Executive Vice President and Vice President of Administration and Finance had been called away and were unable to attend. Both would like to reschedule.

2. Discussion of the council’s report to President Boren ensued. Beth Gatewood brought up had budget cuts were effecting staff and their job duties. It was noted the repercussions of the loss of graduate student would have on the faulty research process.

3. No New Business

Meeting adjourned at 4:15PM

Budget Council Minutes

Monday, February 20, 2012

3:35 – 5:25

The meeting took place at the Provost’s Conference Room, first floor, Evans Hall. Those in attendance include the following members of the Council:

John Albert

Mike Bemben

Beth Gatewood

Susan Hahn

Mark Jones

Bruce Mason

Nancy Mergler

Erin Wolfe

Tom Woodfin

Missing:

Linda Anderson

Nick Hathaway

Craig Hayes

Presidential Faculty appointee

Presidential student appointee

Two UOSA student appointees

Susan Hahn (Chair) called the meeting to order at 3:35pm.

1. Guest speaker Joe Castiglione – Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics Programs And Director of Athletics

a. Sooner network will be fully distributed

i. Digital network worldwide

ii. Sooner network will be more widely distributed then the Texas Longhorn network

iii. Will broadcast all Sooner sports as well OU events such as campus guest speakers

b. Gaylord students are working the Athletic Department – feature stories, event production – also working with new sooner network

c. Athletic department is in favor of student stipends ($2000) to cover costs not covered by scholarship monies

i. Would like to see more control over athletic student spending o

d. Students Athletes have available to them a SA Opportunity fund

i. Is very liberal

ii. Can be used to purchase a coat or other clothing needs, a trip home or academic expenses

2. Mark Jones gave an update on the State Finances

a. Still expecting a flat budget, which equates to about a 5% budget decrease

b. State revenues are up

3. Discussion of the council’s report to President Boren ensued

a. Bruce mason suggested moving the last paragraph to the beginning of the document

b. Provost Mergler would like to see all numbers verified

c. Strategic process – furloughs, benefits, graduate students

d. Over all a more positive, upbeat document

4. No New Business

Meeting adjourned at5:25PM

Budget Council Minutes

Monday, March 19, 2012

3:33 – 4:50

The meeting took place at the Provost’s Conference Room, first floor, Evans Hall. Those in attendance include the following members of the Council:

Mike Bemben

Beth Gatewood

Susan Hahn

Bruce Mason

Nancy Mergler

Erin Wolfe

Tom Woodfin

Missing:

John Albert

Linda Anderson

Nick Hathaway

Craig Hayes

Mark Jones

Presidential Faculty appointee

Presidential student appointee

Two UOSA student appointees

Susan Hahn (Chair) called the meeting to order at 3:33pm.

Susan Hahn, Chair announced guest speaker Tripp Hall, Vice President for University Development would be unable to attend

Guest speaker: Kelvin Droegemeier – Vice President for Research

· Research Function

o VPR Role: facilitates research and creative activity; provides funding; sets policies; oversees space, laboratories, and core facilities

o Research Mission: To utilize the intellectual, technological, and administrative resources of the University of Oklahoma for the generation and dissemination of new knowledge to understand and improve all aspects of life and living.

o Research Vision: To become the Nation’s foremost public comprehensive research university of our size.

· Research Values

o VPR Role: facilitates research and creative activity; provides funding; sets policies; oversees space, laboratories, and core facilities

o Research Mission: To utilize the intellectual, technological, and administrative resources of the University of Oklahoma for the generation and dissemination of new knowledge to understand and improve all aspects of life and living.

o Research Vision: To become the Nation’s foremost public comprehensive research university of our size.

· Norman Campus

o Nearly 1300 research faculty

o 2400 MS students, 1400 doctoral students

o 10 colleges (+ Graduate, CCE/Liberal Studies, Law, Honors, University)

o More than 60 academic departments spanning physical and life sciences, engineering, arts, fine arts, humanities, social and behavioral sciences, business, economics

o More than 70 centers/institutes (7 University Strategic Organizations)

o Four Core Facilities, numerous laboratories

o Five surveys (Bio, Geo, Climate, Archeology, Water)

o Two field stations (Biological, Atmospheric/Ecological)

o The Research Campus

· Monetary Support

Annual VPR Budget = IDC recovered in grant/contract expenditures

o New Faculty Start-Up

o Sponsored Research Incentive (IDC return, 18% to unit, 2% to deans)

o Applied Program Support (25% to PI, 20% to Dean, 10% to Home Unit, 5% to Administering unit)

o Research Council Programs (Faculty Investment Program, Junior Faculty Fellowships)

o VPR Direct Programs (Faculty Travel Support Program, Publication Support Program, Arts and Humanities Program)

o Faculty Challenge Grant Program ($650K in 2011)

o Potentially Transformative Research Program ($100K in 2010)

o Faculty Retention

o Rent in Partners Place Buildings

o Grant Proposal Cost Sharing

o Equipment Purchase

o Strategic Initiatives Faculty Salaries

o Facilities Renovation

o Core Laboratory Staff Salaries

o Informal Requests/Emergency Needs

· Other Support Services

o Center for Research Program Development and Enrichment (CRPDE)

o Office of Research Services (ORS)

o Center for Applied R&D (CARD)

o Office of Defense, Security and Intelligence (DSI) Programs

o Planning and Operations (space, business plans, budgets)

o Research Statistics and Analysis (RSA)

o Undergraduate Research

· Challenges

o These are the best of times, and challenging (but not the worst of) times” (D. Boren)

o Flat/declining Federal agency research budgets

o Balancing existing obligations with new commitments

o Expected faculty turnover in next several years (loss of grant-productive faculty, large start-up costs, ramp-up of research programs)

o Cost of research infrastructure

o Increasing number of unfunded compliance mandates (data management, COI, cost sharing, reporting, …)

o Under-recovery of IDC on many Federal programs

· Strategy

o Continue investing strategically in strongest research programs

o Grow other areas, especially those having synergy with them

o Broaden and deepen engagement with industry

o Continue recruiting outstanding talent – “Need a big pond to fish for marlin”

o Be a comprehensive institution

· Priorities

o Broadening the Research Portfolio (Defense/Security/Intelligence Initiative)

o Pursuing and Winning National Centers (Centers Initiative)

o Thinking Bigger/Larger Projects (Challenge Grants, Incentive Program)

o Collaboration with Federal Labs, Universities, Private Companies

o Applied R&D (Center for Applied R&D; pursuit of a UARC)

o Undergraduate Research Across the University

o Continuing to build research programs with Health Science Center

o Interdisciplinary Research and Collaborative Environments

o Developing Faculty Leadership

o Recruiting, Electing, and Nurturing National Academy Members

o Nominating Outstanding Faculty for Prestigious National Awards

o Initiative on Broadening Participation

o Incentivizing & Rewarding Excellence in Scholarship Across all Disciplines

** For full powerpoint presentation: http://vpr-norman.ou.edu/vpr-presentations

Continuing Business

Discussion continued regarding document to President Boren. The current document was accepted by council with two changes suggested by Tom Woodfin

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM

Budget Council Minutes

Monday, April 16, 2012

3:34 – 4:50

The meeting took place at the Provost’s Conference Room, first floor, Evans Hall. Those in attendance include the following members of the Council:

John Albert

Mike Bemben

Beth Gatewood

Susan Hahn

Mark Jones

Bruce Mason

Nancy Mergler

Erin Wolfe

Tom Woodfin

Missing:

Linda Anderson

Nick Hathaway

Craig Hayes

Presidential Faculty appointee

Presidential student appointee

Two UOSA student appointees

Susan Hahn (Chair) called the meeting to order at 3:34pm.

Susan Hahn, Chair, announced guest speaker Guy Patton, President, OU Foundation would be unable to attend

Guest Speaker: Julius Hilburn – Associate Vice President for Human Resources

· reason for the proposed change is the costs that OU pays for retiree medical benefits increased 46 percent from 2008 to 2010 (from $6.3 million to $9.2 million), and the number of retirees increased 16 percent (from 1767 to 2056). Another 1800 employees will be eligible to retire within the next five years.

· no changes - the projection is these costs will consume more than $26 million in 2022.

· only change since 2007 is employees hired on or after January 1, 2008 can participate in OU’s retiree medical plan, but they are not eligible to receive a University subsidy.

· campus community recommended that changes should not motivate employees to accelerate their planned retirement date to gain a better benefit

· benefits should be based on the date an employee is eligible to retire.

· Other recommendations:

o changes should allow time for planning,

o impact of changes should be lower on those retired or close to retirement

o changes should be easy to understand and communicate

o University’s contribution toward retiree medical premiums in the future should be based primarily on years of service, not just on age.

· The rules to qualify for OU retirement are not changing - three ways to qualify:

o age plus service equals or exceeds 80

o at any age with 25 years of OU service,

o age 62 with 10 years of OU service.

** employees must be covered by OU’s plan for five years prior to retiring to qualify for OU retiree medical coverage.

· Mr. Hilburn explained that the “Rule of 90” is an OTRS retirement rule and does not have to do with OU retirement. Employees who qualify for OU retirement receive the medical benefit, dental coverage, parking, and discounts to events.

· The proposal has more moderate changes that spread the impact across a broader group of employees:

o employees who become eligible to retire from OU by December 31, 2015, the University would continue to pay 100 percent of the premium

o those who become eligible on or after January 1, 2016, would contribute to the cost of their retiree medical coverage based on age and service - University subsidy would be between 55 percent and 95 percent of the overall premium.

o Employees would not be eligible for a subsidy until they reach age 55.

· Mr. Hilburn explained that the OU contribution is locked in at the age when the person starts coverage and the years of service when the person retires - example, if someone begins coverage between the age of 62 and 64 and has 20-24 years of service, OU would pay 75 percent of the premium, and the retiree would be responsible for the other 25 percent. If an employee is a member of OTRS, he or she would get a credit from OTRS of about $105 per month before the percentage is applied.

· Another recommendation is, as of January 1, 2013, employees would be allowed to defer participation in the OU plan if they provide evidence of other insurance coverage

· OU would continue to provide employees who have more than ten years of service with a disability retirement subsidy of 100 percent for those who become eligible by December 31, 2015 and 95 percent for those who become eligible after January 1, 2016.

· In keeping with the principle of impacting a broader group of people, as of January 1, 2016, some changes are being proposed for all Medicare eligible participants who retired on or after July 1, 1995:

o Medicare covers retirees once they become 65. Until then they have the same medical coverage as active employees. Our current plan pays 100 percent of anything that Medicare does not pay.

o The proposal would introduce a $300 annual deductible and a change in the way the OU plans integrates with Medicare that would create a cost sharing similar to the active employee plan.

o To shield retirees from catastrophic events, the maximum out-of-pocket expense would be $1500.

o The proposed Medicare exclusion coordination method is pretty common and used to be used by OU until the early 2000s.

· The proposed changes would reduce the University post-retirement benefit obligation by about 28 percent, from $540 million to $390 million.

o Credit rating agencies look at our ability to pay and service debt. The post-retirement benefit obligation impacts our ability to issue bonds. In addition to reducing our long-term liability,

o the proposal would show that we have a plan in place to manage those obligations.

o Mr. Hilburn explained how the various features would contribute to the savings:

§ opt out provision $17 million (11 percent)

§ $300 deductible $26 million (17 percent)

§ new coordination method with Medicare $53 million (35 percent)

§ retiree contributions $57 million (37 percent).

· The retiree contributions would not start until 2016

· By 2016, we could realize a cost savings of around $2.3 million.

· The effective date for all changes except the opt-out is January 1, 2016 so as to build in a lot of lead time.

· The next steps are to seek feedback on the proposal and submit recommendations to President Boren in early March. The President will decide which recommendations to take and whether to modify any.

o Regents’ approval is expected in March or May.

o Mr. Hilburn will be making a presentation to the Staff Senate and has been in contact with the retiree association.

New Business

Tom Woodfin agreed to assume the Chair of the Budget Council for the 2012-13 academic year.

Meeting adjourned at5:00 PM

Attachment: e-mail from Julius Hilburn to the Budget Council:

Budget Council Members

As a follow up to our discussion yesterday at the Budget Council meeting, I’d like to provide some additional information.  We covered lots of topics, and based on some feedback and follow up questions I received, I think it’s important that I clarify and expand on some of my comments.

Regarding the Employee Benefits Committee consideration of recommendations to President Boren for changes to the retiree medical plan, EBC members engaged in a lively discussion of suggested changes to the contribution subsidy matrix and the effective date for Medicare benefit changes.   As I indicated during my comments, there was full consensus that the date for implementing the Medicare changes should remain January 2016.  But there was significant debate about changes to the contribution subsidy matrix proposed by the Faculty Senate Executive committee.  Ultimately, the EBC voted on a resolution to accept the original proposal that included a contribution matrix with subsidy amounts ranging from 55-95% and Medicare changes beginning in 2016.  The EBC voted 10 to 1 in favor of the resolution.  There were 4 EBC members not in attendance.  I want to make sure that everyone understands the topic of providing a 100% benefit for those reaching age 62 with at least 25 years of service was vigorously debated, especially if that was not clear from my comments yesterday.

Below is the contribution matrix proposed by the Faculty Senate executive committee. The proposed 100% subsidy for those over 62 with 25 years of service is shown. I made a comment in response to a question from Mike Bemben that there was a 25% improvement in the benefit for some employees, where the old matrix would have only provided a 10% step up.  I was referring to those employees ages 55-61 who would receive a 75% subsidy, but who would have a 25% benefit improvement should they postpone retirement until at least age 62 in order to qualify for the 100% subsidy proposed.  Thought I should clarify my comment.

Should you have further questions or need additional information, don’t hesitate to let me know.  Thanks.

Age	Years of Service
	10-14	15-19	20-24	25+
Under 55	Employees can retire with 25 years of service.  No university subsidy until age 55.
55-61	Not Eligible	55%- must meet Rule of 80	65% - must meet Rule of 80	75%
62-64	55%	65%	75%	85% 100%
65+	65%	75%	85%	95% 100%

Julius Hilburn
Associate Vice President &
Chief Human Resources Officer
905 Asp Avenue, Room 225
Norman, OK  73019
Tel:  (405) 325-5647

Fax:  (405) 325-7354

Jhilburn@ou.edu

Budget Council Minutes

Monday, May 21, 2012

3:34 – 3:45

The meeting took place at the Provost’s Conference Room, first floor, Evans Hall. Those in attendance include the following members of the Council:

Mike Bemben

Susan Hahn

Craig Hayes

Bruce Mason

Nancy Mergler

Erin Wolfe

Tom Woodfin

Missing:

John Albert

Beth Gatewood

Linda Anderson

Mark Jones

Nick Hathaway

Presidential Faculty appointee

Presidential student appointee

Two UOSA student appointees

Susan Hahn (Chair) called the meeting to order at 3:32pm.

Susan Hahn, Chair, announced guest speaker Chris Kuwitzky – Associate Vice President for Administration and Finance and Chief Financial Officer would be unable to attend.

· E-mail from Chris: There have been no material changes on the budget front since the President’s Budget Forum on April 30^th.  We are waiting on the Legislature to allocate funds to the OSRHE, at which point we will learn what OU’s FY13 appropriation will be.  That of course will allow us to finalize Fall 2012 tuition and mandatory fee recommendations.  It’s just a guess at this point, but tuition and mandatory fee increases of 3% +/- may be necessary … depending on State appropriations

Linda Anderson and Mark Jones were unable to attend

· Email from Linda: we are trying to do as much as we can before we get our numbers on Friday (if we get them that is!!).  As soon as I find out anything about tuition and fees or appropriations, I will send you an email. 

Guest Speaker: Dan Pullin – Vice President for Strategic Planning and Economic Development

Dan administers three organizations:

· Corporate Engagement Office (CEO) develops relationships for the university

o Working in the shared interest of OU's research and development enterprise, the Corporate Engagement Office (CEO) facilitates interaction among academia, government, military, and private sector interests, helping to build relationships and identify opportunities of common interest. Specific CEO activities include observing trends and opportunities, orienting relationships and strategies for Research Campus capabilities and assisting to develop OU's responses to those opportunities

· Office of Technology Development (OTD) manages OU technology transfer

o Faculty and staff members on OU's three campuses are increasingly engaged in basic and applied research, the results of which may have significant commercial and/or societal impact. Overseeing the commercial development of those results is the responsibility of OU's Office of Technology Development (OTD), which has intellectual property responsibility for all three campuses. OTD works with researchers to focus on getting value from the technology that is developed at OU. Those efforts, in turn, allow for the creation of new companies or execution of licenses with companies that can benefit from that technology, all of which contributes directly to the intellectual, economic, social and cultural vitality of the state and nation.

o Since its creation in 1998, OTD has created 36 companies that have generated more than $75 million in capital, more than $10 million in cash and more than $30 million in current estimated equity value for the university. In addition, these companies have created in excess of 150 jobs, which pay on average nearly twice the median household income in Oklahoma. In FY2009, through OTD, the University was awarded 16 U.S. patents and 7 foreign patents; entered into three exclusive license agreements and one non-exclusive license agreement; and actively marketed 27 selected technologies.

· Center for the Creation of Economic Wealth (CCEW) engages faculty, students, and alumni to grow and diversify our economy

o In spring 2006, OU's Center for the Creation of Economic Wealth (CCEW) was established. Administered by OU's University Vice President for Strategic Planning and Technology Development and operating alongside the Office of Technology Development (OTD), CCEW creates an environment where students and faculty can learn about entrepreneurial ventures and how ideas lead to intellectual property, intellectual property leads to products, products lead to companies and jobs, and jobs lead to a stronger, more diverse economy.

o CCEW's objectives are to broaden exposure to the entrepreneurial process, give students the opportunity to engage in real-world business enterprise, accelerate moving OU technology into the marketplace and strengthen wealth development in Oklahoma. By design, CCEW is truly an interdisciplinary program with students representing, to date, the colleges of Engineering, Business, Arts & Sciences, Journalism, Fine Arts, and Law. Through both a Mentor-In-Residence Program and an internship program, CCEW participants engage in entrepreneurial outreach activities and the development of actual start-up companies. Under the direction of mentors from the Oklahoma business community and OU faculty and staff, 84 outstanding students completed internships with CCEW and another 12 have been admitted to the program for Fall 2009.

Meeting adjourned at 4:45pm

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

To: David L. Boren, President

From: Budget Council

The Budget Council would like to express our sincere appreciation for your leadership and advocacy for the University during the last four very difficult budget years.

Although the national economy and, in particular, the Oklahoma economy, is showing signs of improvement, indications are that the University will continue to face a difficult budget situation for some time to come, due in large part to increases in fixed costs and continued reduction in the proportion of the budget underwritten by the state government. In this report we would like to offer our perspective on possible ways forward from here, based on the input we have obtained not only from officials representing many different sectors of the University, but from conversations with our colleagues and students.

One message we have encountered consistently from those we have consulted in our deliberations has been that much of the progress the University has made over the years has been due to your skillful negotiation of the complicated and difficult budget process, in which competing ideas and pressures from a variety of state agencies must be reconciled. In the spirit of the Guiding Principles for Budgetary Actions approved by the Faculty Senate in May 2010 (see attached), we offer these suggestions in hopes they will help you as you continue to navigate these waters.

As you know, the University has implemented permanent budget cuts of around 5% each year for the past few years and is planning to institute further permanent cuts. Their cumulative effect has been such that there is now little left to cut without making some very hard decisions. Many departments have dealt with the cuts by reducing their one-time instructional support (OTIS) budgets. Students are facing larger class sizes and less interaction with faculty as temporary faculty lines and adjunct positions have been eliminated. This, together with the hiring freeze that has been in place since 2008, has meant a concomitant increase in faculty teaching load, in the form of either more classes or more students per class.

As faculty members we have striven to maintain the quality of our teaching in these new circumstances while at the same time improving and expanding our research enterprise. The Aspire 2020 planning framework has set our institution an ambitious goal: to become the nation’s foremost public comprehensive research university of our size. Our progress to date has resulted in the University of Oklahoma being classified, for the first time in 2011, as an RU/VH (very high research activity) university by the Carnegie Foundation. We think that increased funding for research is likely to continue to be one bright spot in the budget picture in coming years. But for this to happen, faculty members need to be free to devote time to instructing graduate students and involving them in their research projects. Since graduate courses have relatively small enrollments, and may even be one-on-one reading courses between a faculty member and a student, faculty generally have to undertake these specialized graduate instruction in addition to their regular teaching duties. Therefore we feel that, for the health of the University research mission, it’s imperative that instructional money not be further cut.

We believe that reductions should not come from staff resources, which are essential to the smooth everyday functioning of the University. Although private funding has secured new programs and facilities for research, we have not been able to grow the research infrastructure to support it, which can result in new programs cannibalizing resources from areas of existing strength.

In addition, faculty and staff are highly concerned with changes in the benefits and retirement programs. In the past many departments were able to attract highly acclaimed faculty with lure of the University’s stellar benefits program. Changes in retirement benefits and compensation have significantly restricted the ability of departments to attract and hire premier faculty.

As proposed in the Faculty Senate’s Budgetary Guidelines, we request that you clearly establish how any further permanent budget cuts are related to long-term issues before instituting them. Once they have been established as related to long-term issues then we would like to work with you to come up with measures to address them without impacting the university’s core mission.

Sincerely,

The Budget Council

Susan E. Hahn, Chair

---

Continuing Education Council

2011-12 Annual Report

Submitted by SHANNON BERT, Chair

Members: Shannon Bert, Chair; Kirby Gilliland; Hans-Peter Wachter; Molly Murphy, Jenny Barnhouse, Michael Buckley, Juanita Vargas, Julie Raadschelders, Rebecca Cook, Chris Elliott

Ex-officio Members: James Pappas, VP University Outreach; Nancy Mergler, Senior VP & Provost; Kelvin Droegemeier, VP for Research; T.H. Lee Williams, Graduate College Dean

Vacancies: None

Meetings: November 11, 2011; February 20, 2012; and due to conflicting and demanding calendars, the April 30 Continuing Education Council meeting was cancelled.

Transition: From 2010 to 2011, Dr. Gilliland served as chair and enjoyed the experience. In Fall 2011, Drs. Pappas and Gilliland agreed it would be good to have a different chair for the new perspective and ideas. At the November 2011 meeting, Dr. Gilliland opened the floor to nominations for chair and nominated Shannon Bert. Dr. Bert graciously accepted and the Council was unanimous with approval. Dr. Bert began serving officially as Chair of the CE Council in February 2012.

Revisiting our Purpose: We began the year by revisiting the Continuing Education Council’s Charge to refresh ourselves regarding our responsibilities and roles as a council. After reviewing past annual reports and reflecting on past meetings, it was clear that there were many instances where people made recommendations and offered insights or suggestions, but this may not have been fully conveyed by the annual reports. This year, we made an effort to give a richer representation of the Council’s activities in reports.

An Overview of Outreach: At the beginning of each academic year, as well as when new members are in attendance, Dr. Pappas provides a brief overview of Outreach activities including its programs and budget. At the November 2011 meeting, Dr. Pappas distributed the Outreach Lifelong Learning Opportunities brochure which gives a general description of offerings. Below is a listing of activities highlighted: the Outreach Postal Service contract of $11M per year is the largest; Outreach has a number of activities related to child support that are ongoing; conducting financial planning and training for securities commission; working with minorities; researching juvenile justice. Becky Cook (National Center for Disability Education & Training) stated that their most recent activities have been with the U.S. Department of Labor working with entities on increasing employment opportunity for minorities with disabilities among minority owned businesses. They are also working with SAIC and FAA, as well as a number of economic development districts in the state with the Department of Commerce.

Online Marketing: Outreach has created three 30-60 second commercials with Sooner Sports and has integrated billboards, NPR, ads, etc. The Council learned about new initiatives focusing on older students, working mothers, and military audiences. Outreach has been working with JMH Consultants to upgrade their website for electronic marketing. After reviewing the Outreach websites, JMH suggested that Outreach consolidate. Outreach has 30 to 40 program units with their own websites, which does not allow for consistency. Though each website is attractive for their particular audience, it does not cross-market the college well.

Nontraditional Doctorate: Nontraditional doctorate degrees have seen a large growth along with distance education. In order to increase status, many disciplines have started creating practice doctorates. The Sloan Consortium states that by 2015-20 there will be more nontraditional doctorates than traditional doctorates. Many traditional universities are looking at non-traditional doctorates, as well as online doctoral programs. The CE Council will explore this new trend in upcoming meetings and make recommendations. One suggestion was that CCE might sponsor a national conference on the non-traditional doctorate. Dr. Williams raised the issue of the scholarly experience associated with the typical doctoral degree and whether it is necessary to be on campus to achieve the “scholarly community experience.” Chair Gilliland stated that the Council had discussed possibly sponsoring a forum on nontraditional doctorate degrees. However, there was not much enthusiasm from the faculty. Dr. Williams had suggested attaching it to another national event, i.e., Council of Graduate School’s annual meeting. He approached them and they are interested. Dr. Williams will contact Dr. Pappas once firm arrangements are being made.

Dr. Pappas has edited a monograph on the topic of nontraditional doctorates. In fact, Advanced Programs has a good model of delivering doctoral degree to students not on campus. Discussions ensued regarding developing an Outreach Forum regarding non-traditional doctorates and privatization doctoral programs; profit institutions vs. non-profit institutions; and research vs. applied. We should explore the different models of the doctoral experience as new models are emerging that are atypical doctorates. Dr. Williams wrote about OU’s Organizational Leadership program where our student body is based in Germany and they create their own cohort. Now disciplines are creating their own doctorate practice oriented degree, i.e., Psy.D. (Psychology), DNP (Nursing Practice), DMA (Musical Arts), and professional doctorates where the major part of their activity is practice based. The doctorate has historically been a research degree and the students were apprentices. Now there are structured curricula that are individualized in the end. Is a traditional doctorate a person working during the day and taking night classes? Suggestions for speakers include: DOE rep., accrediting agency rep., authors of books/journals regarding what constitutes the doctoral experience; the Deans involved with the Councils of Graduate Schools to provide legitimacy and perhaps sponsorship with the Under Secretary of Education.

Creating Awareness of CE Programs: While serving as Chair, Dr. Gilliland initiated the allotment of time to each meeting to increasing the awareness of programs and services offered by Outreach among Council members and well as the University at large. In an effort to do so, representatives from CE programs are invited to attend the Council meeting and provide a brief demonstration of their program and/or services. At the November 2011 meeting, Bob Dougherty (CLS IT), Rosemary Hayes (C-IDEA), Bryan Bowden (FVBP), gave a demonstration of Web Conferencing. They demonstrated how the internet can be used for conferences, courses, meetings, trainings, etc. This process allows sharing files, immediate interface (whether verbal or typed comments), ability to change presenters, recording the event, etc. Those interested should contact Film and Video Broadcast Productions (FVBP) at 325-4479 for information and assistance.

At the February 2012 meeting Kelly Damphousse was invited to speak regarding accountability for OU teaching: Dr. Damphousse was asked to speak to the large portion of faculty teaching for Outreach on an overload basis, e.g., AP, CLS, OSHER, as well as accountability. He distributed overheads titled A&S Strategies for Management Enrollment which included data charts on teaching within the colleges. There was a discussion about rising tuition rates (tuition rate is higher than anything else in the consumer index) and the concern it has caused within the public. Dr. Damphousse pointed out, however, that tuition increases have mirrored state cuts and funding of higher education. Furthermore, Dr. Damphousse discussed the College of Arts and Sciences’ growing concern that the quality of education is going down and that faculty are being paid and not teaching enough. Some universities are creating new teaching load rules for faculty where faculty must teach freshmen at least every other year, must teach at least 100 students per year, class enrollment must be at least 40. We do not currently have these policies at OU. Council members, including faculty, are feeling the strain as well. CAS are working with chairs to monitor more closely and have data sets with better information such as number of classes offered, size of classes, betting utilization of summer session. He suggested 3 sources to find data – ClassMap; Ozone The Book; the new Credit Hour Report. Corollary to that, there is a lot of stories that faculty are not teaching full loads, yet they can teach in Continuing Education. However, Dr. Pappas has reviewed records and found that faculty who teach in Outreach do in fact teach their full loads.

Grants and Contracts: Dr. Pappas distributed a Daily Caller news article Investigation: FAA romance led to $970M contract award, 3,300% increase in air traffic control errors. The article states that there are questionable behaviors on part of the FAA and the contract. Raytheon had a bid overrun of $50M, which was approved by the FAA. At the same time a large percentage of air traffic controllers are having problems as a result of their training. The FAA is under a lot of pressure. We have been working with our legislative liaisons who have alerted our delegation to several issues including the knowledge that it would make sense for them to come to Oklahoma since we have done the training here, have the expertise, have better costs than other airports, and we have taught these classes. Our hope is that if there is a rebid there will be more of an open field.

Dr. Pappas attended CCME where discussion ensued that the military is trying to set a tuition standard for all schools that teach in military. The intent was to protect students from for-profits, however, it has morphed into having everyone charging in-state tuition for military students. This would be a significant challenge for those in military education though we are less impacted because of contract fees. This would drive out of military field those that did not agree to in-state tuition for all students. This may result in 3^rd party payers (state government, corporate tuition assistance) limiting tuition available.

Encouraging Discussion/Participation Among Council Members at Meetings: We sent out a Surveymonkey to address days of the week council prefers to meet in hopes of increasing meeting attendance as well as topics that the Council might like to discuss. The topics rated most highly were accountability; changing faculty roles; learning standards and outcomes; gamification and digital presence; accreditation; and dealing with international opportunities. Dr. Pappas, along with Council members, acknowledged the dramatic increase in attendance and participation.

Prior to the February 20, 2012 meeting, Dr. Bert met with Dr. Pappas to discuss additional ways of increasing member discussions and participation at the Council meetings. It was decided that Kelly Damphousse would be invited to present on the topic of changing faculty roles within the current financial climate. To facilitate discussion, Drs. Bert and Pappas researched various articles related to the topic and had each forwarded them to Council members prior to the meeting. These articles included: Roles and Activities of the Future Professoriate by Plater, Schuster & Gappa; The Chronicle’s Workload and Faculty Roles and Redefining Faculty Roles; a Tulane University Strategic Planning article titled Changing Role of Faculty; and the article Changes in Higher Education Redefining Faculty Roles by UConn Advance.

Topics for Discussion at the Fall 2012 Meeting: The Council approved gamification for the next agenda. We might consider inviting Greg Garn to speak to the agenda. Scott Green at K20 is the actual developer for gamification and may be another person to be invited to speak to the Council.

---

COUNCIL ON FACULTY AWARDS AND HONORS

2011-12 ANNUAL REPORT

SUBMITTED BY S. LAKSHMIVARAHAN, CHAIR

The following members were present:

S. Lakshmivarahan	Computer Science	College of Engineering (Chair)
Kevin Haney	Developmental Dentistry	College of Dentistry
Dora DiGiacinto	Medical Imaging & Radiation Sci.	College of Allied Health
Petra Klein	Meteorology	College of Atmos. & Geo Sci.
Satish Kumar	Medicine	College of Medicine
Linda Alfred	Medical Imaging & Radiation Sci.	College of Allied Health
Kyung Lee	Mathematics	College of Arts & Science
Kimball Milton	Physics and Astronomy	College of Arts & Science
Barbara Neas	Biostatistics & Epidemiology	College of Public Health

The following members were absent:

Linda Young (Alumnus)

We had a slate of 46 nominations for the various awards. The nomination files of the ten nominees for the David Ross Boyd Professorship were reviewed by all, the rest of nominations were equally split between two subcommittees consisting of near equal number of members of the council.

The winners were selected at the meeting at the Norman Provost conference room from 11.30 to 2.00 pm on Friday January 27th, 2012. Provost office provided with box lunches.

Members of the council helped to write a short bio on the winners, which were read at the time of announcement of the award.

The committee adjourned after electing the chair for the next year 2012-13: Satish Kumar (HSC College of Medicine).

We thank Ms. Mechelle Gibson for coordinating all the activities of the council that made our job a lot easier.

---

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (NORMAN)

2011-12 ANNUAL REPORT

SUBMITTED BY AL SCHWARZKOPF, CHAIR

Membership

Faculty Senate Appointees:

Kao	Chung	Physics & Astronomy	09	12
McCuen	Tamera	Construction Science	09	12
Kolar	Randy	Civil Engr. & Envir. Science	10	13
Schwarzkopf [chair]	Al	Management Info. Systems	10	13
Ruan	Jiening	Instr. Lead. & Acad. Curr.	11	14

Staff Senate Appointees:

Ice	Stefan	Music	09	12
Callahan	Samuel	Architecture	10	13
Bailey	Chad	Education	11	14

Ex-officio Members:

Kelly	Robert	For the Senior Vice President and Provost
Millsap	Burr	For the Vice President for Administrative Affairs
Papavassiliou	Dimitrios	For the Vice President for Research
Hathaway	Nick	For the President
Early	Loretta	VP for Info. Technology

The Information Technology Council (ITC) identified three areas of particular concern for its focus this year. These areas were

· oZONE and associated applications

· Lecture Capture and related classroom technologies

· research support and backup technologies

oZONE

oZONE Usage

This semester we added the chair of the ITC (myself) to the Ozone Retention and Change Committee, the committee that oversees changes to the oZONE system. This allows more immediate faculty feedback that we have had in the past. Focusing on use, rather than features has helped refocus this committee.

We hosted a presentation from SunGuard that outlined new features for the upgraded oZONE. As chair I was able to assign two MIS capstone student teams to research various issues in ozone.

We asked Field Project Team 1 to analyze user interactions within the oZONE system to identify issues and determine solutions  for its various functions. More specifically, the student process of enrollment and registering for classes and the adviser processes have been reviewed and analyzed for significant issues. oZONE provides a single portal for students, faculty, and administration to perform various functions.  These functions include email, checking grades, enrollment, advising, financial aid, viewing and paying bills, library access, etc. The current adviser and enrollment processes have some usability difficulties. The system is inefficient because of the complexity involved in seemingly simple tasks.  The goals of the new system feature easy ways of enrolling and advising utilizing revised oZONE interfaces, thus making it more user-friendly.

At this time, oZONE is the common system that both students and advisers use. The users perform different functions within the system. Each of the user’s purposes was analyzed, and the most appropriate solution was recommended. The solutions will simplify the processes by modifying the user interfaces.  In order to do this, student enrollment steps, classes viewing options, degree auditing steps and advising steps were analyzed and modified.

The University of Oklahoma initially had two alternatives: continue on with the current oZONE system processes or change the user interfaces by modifying the current oZONE system.  The system vendor, Ellucian (formerly SunGard), is currently working on an upgrade that will address the interface issues for student enrollment. It is unknown exactly when upgrade will be released, but it is expected within the next year. It is also unknown exactly how the interface will be changed (anticipated for fall 2013). The University of Oklahoma and Field Project Team 1 have analyzed the current system and concluded Banner 9 should resolve many of the issues advisers and student experience when using oZONE. Banner 9 will allow advisers and students to spend less time on advising and enrolling and will provide more time to study and do research.

Adequate training for advisers and students is essential to ensure oZONE is utilized as efficiently as possible in the future. We recommend a video clip with caption as well as a slide show for each step of the process. The slide show will allow the user to control the speed as they walk through each step. These videos and slideshows should be made easily available on oZONE. Furthermore, Banner 9 will help The University of Oklahoma to achieve its mission of providing the best possible educational experience.

oZONE Reporting

Ozone, also known as Banner, is a transactional ERP that students and faculty use to process student records and enrollment. The Operational Data Store, or ODS, is the data repository used by the university for student data reporting. The ODS is updated once a day from Ozone. Currently, the main challenge with the ODS is a lack of “fine grained access” – i.e. users should be able to see only rows that they are authorized to.

The process to modify and create new reports is complicated by FERPA and the technical inability for users to create their own reports. The dedicated FERPA representative, Rick Skeel, and his team approve all user requests for student data access. Data access and Cognos reporting licensing are two independent and distinct issues addressed in this report.

Cognos is IBM's business intelligence (BI) software suite. Its stated purpose is to enable users without technical knowledge to extract data, analyze it and assemble reports. The three types of license categories used at OU are Consumer, Report Studio, and Enterprise. The Consumer license (BI Consumer) is the lowest tier with users granted access to “canned” reports created by the Ozone reporting team. The Report Studio license (BI Advanced Business Author) is the middle tier, with users able to do some custom reporting. The enterprise license (BI Professional Author) is the highest tier, granting full use of the Cognos software suite. Enterprise licenses and the associated data access will be granted on an individual basis.

Users are granted licenses and access to the ODS through two separate processes which, while independent, work in parallel. The first is a data access request that goes to the relevant data owners for approval. The second request to the OCRC grants the appropriate Cognos license. The OCRC verifies the user has the permission to access the data requested, then forwards the request to the OU IT team assigned for report requests.

Data access to reports and downloads is driven by the need to limit access to student data so that only people with a genuine need for such data can access it. Defining the right limits for access is called developing Fine Grain Access authorization that identifies the individual records and the attributes in those records that each user can see. This process is now under way and should lead to more data availability in the near future.

Lecture Capture

CLASSROOM CAPTURE

OU put out a request for proposals last year for lecture capture technology. We had three responses: Echo360, Tegrity, Panopto, and Visionality (a vendor reselling Crestron). We had a comprehensive lecture capture presentation from OU-IT which is outlined below. In addition we viewed presentations from Echo360 and Tegrity.

A major problem with all of these solutions is that none of them are ADA compliant out-of-the-box. Adding closed captioning is generally an additional cost option through a third party/

Basic features that should be considered for classroom communication software include:

CLASSROOM LECTURE CAPTURE:

· Appliance connected to cameras and microphones

· High quality recordings

· Easier to support and operate

· Permanently installed in classroom

· Produced content for storage, archiving, and playback

· OFFERING: Supplemental material for review

VIDEO TELECONFERENCING

· Complete system with specialized hardware

· High quality content

· Very expensive with high support needs

· Very high level of interaction, real time

· No portability

· No produced content

· Room-to-room

· OFFERING: High quality experience with maximum interaction.

STREAMING/DESKTOP CONFERENCING

· Software or Hardware Based

· High demand on infrastructure and support

· Limited interaction, BUT viewed in real time

· No content published- Intellectual property.

· Some portability

· One-to-many

· OFFERING: Live content for virtual audience in real time.

REMOTE CAPTURE

· Software based solution

· Increased challenge to support

· Requires maximum independence for end users

· Limited interaction, no real time

· Potentially lower quality recordings

· Produced content for storage, archiving, and playback

· OFFERING: Portability for Virtual Teaching and Learning

Currently Echo360 is being used by Atmospheric and Earth Sciences and Tegrity is being used by the Mewborne College of Earth and Energy. These are both centrally administered classroom installations that are primarily designed for multi-classroom use. The Visionality offering is primarily a hardware product that could be installed in a single classroom.

We also looked at the software tools available for creating small video tutorials. Several are available:

Recording your Lecture

In order to record your lecture you will need to download software and install it on your computer. A major issue here is how to distribute the results. Video files are relatively large and D2L is not set up to support them. OU is trying to use iTunes U, but the setup process has not been well publicized.

There are a few good and inexpensive programs available. Here are some listed below.

Sceenr ‐ $19 (Free to try and unlimited users for individual account)
this program is easy to use and is PC/Apple friendly. Files are generated in an .m4v format for fast
distribution. http://www.screenr.com/

ProfCast ‐ $59.95 (Powerful tool and easy to use)
ProfCast is a versatile, powerful, yet very simple to use tool for recording lectures including PowerPoint
and/or Keynote slides for creating enhanced podcasts. Works well with both PC/Apple.
http://www.profcast.com/public/index.php

Camstudio ‐ FREE
probably the best little recording program for simply recording the instructor’s computer screen and

audio. Camstudio uses really simple controls and learning how to use it will only take a few tries. Keep

in mind that it records and makes an .avi file and is PC only. In order to edit the file or add titles you will

need to use another program. http://camstudio.org/

Jing ‐ FREE (Pro version is $15/year)
This is an elegant little piece of software and is really easy to use. It’s distributed by TechSmith (makers

of Camtasia) and is a good step if you are thinking about stepping up to Camtasia. One big advantage of

the Pro version is that you can record webcam video of the instructor.

http://www.techsmith.com/jing.html

Audacity ‐ FREE
Audacity is free, open source software for recording and editing sounds. It is available for Mac OS X,

Microsoft Windows, Linux, and other operating systems. Don’t forget to download LAME encoder!!!

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

Download one of these programs and open up a slide presentation. Record yourself talking at the slides

for a few minutes and VIEW the lecture sample. Viewing your performance is extremely important

when you are starting out. It is sort of like recording your golf swing. You won't get better until you see

just how bad you really are! But I assure you that with time you will adjust to this new way of teaching.

Data Archiving

One of the issues considered this year was the identification of technology for archiving up and storing critical research data. We call the process of periodically copying selected files to a secondary site “Archiving.” “Backup” is the process of storing incremental changes as they occur. Backup across the OU network has the potential of badly impacting network performance. Therefore, we focused on archiving solutions. There are several options.

An issue for managing archived files is that compromise of secure student data (FERPA records) puts both the faculty member and the university at legal risk. Any solution needs to have limited access and preferably be stored on university managed facilities. Basic file storage options include the following:

· IT File ($12 per GB/year)

· Portfolio (Free)

· D2L Locker (Free)

· Dropbox (Free)

· Box (Free)

Research data can be much larger and may require the facilities of the OU managed PetaStore. This facility provides free storage of large quantities of data for the cost of a datacenter tape, but it is not certified for FERPA data.

---

NORMAN CAMPUS RESEARCH COUNCIL

2011-2012 ANNUAL REPORT

SUBMITTED BY DAVID BOECK, CHAIR

Membership

The members of the 2011-2012 Research Council, their departments and terms:

David Boeck	Architecture	2009-12
Mark Nanny	Civil Engineering/Environmental Science	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
Lori Snyder	Psychology	2010-13
Paul Spicer	Anthropology	2010-13
Dimitrios Papavassiliou	Chemical, Biological & Materials Eng.	2011-14
Suzanne Moon	History of Science	2011-14
Ralf Schmidt	Mathematics	2011-14
Laurie Scrivener	University Libraries	2011-14

Ex-Officio Members:

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

Secretary:

Cindy Clark	1/1/12 – current
Linda Kilby	7/1/11 – 12/31/11

Professor Mark Nanny joined the Council in January 2012 to complete the term for Elizabeth Butler, and Suzanne Moon joined the Council in November 2011 to complete the term for Terry Rugeley. Cindy Clark assumed responsibility for the duties of the Secretary as January 2012. Linda Kilby stepped down as Secretary after eleven years of serving the Research Council.

Professors Boeck, Nanny, Hambright, and Leighly completed their terms at the end of the 2011-2012 academic year. The 2012-2013 Chair of the Research Council was elected at the May, 2012 meeting and will be Dr. Paul Spicer, Department of Anthropology.

The Faculty Senate Appointments to replace David Boeck, Mark Nanny, K. David Hambright and Karen Leighly are Traci Cart, Younane Abousleiman, Bing Zhang, and Sheena Murphy, respectively.

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

a) Engineering: Mark Nanny and Dimitrios Papavassiliou

b) Physical Sciences: Karen Leighly and Ralf Schmidt

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 Suzanne Moon

f) Other: Laurie Scrivener and David Boeck

g) Fine Arts: Marvin Lamb

Activities (2011-2012)

The primary activity of the Research Council during the 2011-2012 academic year was to advise and make recommendations to the Vice President for Research (VPR) pertaining to expenditures and awards under his administration, namely

· Small Grant Awards ($1,200 or less)

· Large Grant ($1,201 - $7,500)

· Reprint Awards (< $250)

· Faculty Investment Program (Up to $15,000)

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

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

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

The Potentially Transformative Program was not offered during FY2012. During the Fall of 2011, the Research Council determined that the Small Grant Program and the Large Grants Program would no longer be offered, but that they would be collapsed into a new program: the Faculty Investment Program (FIP). In addition, the Reprint Program would no longer be supported by the Research Council, effective January 1, 2012. A summary of the Research Council recommendations approved by the VPR for the period July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 is available on the Research Council’s website. Statistics concerning the three programs supported by the Research Council as of January 1, 2012 are attached.

The Research Council devoted much time and discussion to the new funding programs, award nominations and additional issues.

• Small Grant Awards Program ($1,200 or less), the Large Grant Program ($1,201 - $7,500), and the PI Investment Awards Program – These programs were active until December 31, 2011. They were collapsed into a new program: the Faculty Investment Program (see below) on January 1, 2012. During the Fall 2011, there were 11 applications submitted to the Small Grant Awards Program and 10 were funded, for a total of $10,794. There were also 6 proposals submitted to the Large Grant Program and 3 were funded, for a total of $18,310. There were 7 proposals were submitted to the PI Investment Awards Program, and 3 were funded for a total of $28,021.

• Faculty Investment Program (FIP) – The Research Council discussed changes to the existing Small Grant and Large Grant Programs. These were collapsed into one new program: the Faculty Investment Program (FIP). The Faculty Investment Program provides funding on a competitive basis to develop and expand the scholarly (i.e., research and creative) activities of Norman campus researchers, including researchers associated with Norman Campus Programs at OU-Tulsa. The FIP is designed to provide maximum flexibility in meeting researcher needs via strategic investment of funds with a high degree of expectation and accountability. Ultimately, FIP is expected to enhance the national and international reputation of the University of Oklahoma via excellence in scholarship. The goal of obtaining external funding is not a requirement. However, proposals requesting seed funding to develop projects that may lead to external funding, particularly if such projects involve multiple disciplines, are welcomed. This includes disciplines that traditionally may not have been perceived as having as many opportunities for seeking external funding (e.g., humanities, fine arts), though many such opportunities exist and can be explored via interaction with the Center for Research Program Development and Enrichment (http://crpde.ou.edu). The maximum award under the FIP is $15,000, and proposals are welcome in any amount up to the maximum. Proposals having budgets of $3,000 or less will be evaluated by the Center for Research Program Development and Enrichment (CRPDE). The FIP was implemented in January 2012 using the funds left from the Small Grant and Large Grant Programs in addition to funds from the Research Council 2011 carryover. During Spring 2012, there were 28 applications submitted to the FIP Over $3,000, and 16 were funded for a total of $173,841. In addition, there were 10 FIP proposals requesting $3,000 or less, and 4 were funded for a total of $9,525.

• Reprint Awards Program – This program was funded until December 31, 2011. There were 6 requests for funding through this program during the Fall 2011, and all 6 were funded for a total of $1,250. As of January 1, 2012, the Research Council no longer supports this program.

• Junior Faculty Fellowship Program – This program is designed to help new tenure-track faculty members establish their research/creative activity and make progress to tenure by providing support in areas critical to the development of their programs. The program is restricted to tenure-track assistant professors who are in the first four years of their tenure-track position at the University. As a general rule, the $7,000 (plus fringe benefits) awards are used as summer (June and July) stipends to enable faculty members to carry out full time research during that period. However, the awards are not limited to summer stipends and faculty members are urged to use the awards in order to provide maximum benefit to their research programs. This might include supplies, equipment, personnel and travel. A faculty member receiving an award is expected to make a one-month commitment to research during the summer. Faculty members who have not acquired a terminal degree by the deadline for application, associate and full professors, instructors, and visiting appointees are not eligible for this program. Also, because of the limited number of available awards, faculty cannot receive an award in consecutive years, and faculty that have other sources of summer salary support will receive lower priority. In February 2012, fifteen proposals were selected from 43 submissions to receive Junior Faculty Fellowships. Most requested the funds to be used for salary; however, there were a few faculty that submitted budgets that included supplies, resulting in differing award amounts. The amounts ranged from $7,750 to $9,625 and the total funding amount for the program was $141,310.

· The Council also 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. They also made recommendations to the VPR for the VPR Outstanding Research Impact Award and the VPR Outstanding Research Engagement Award.

· The Research Council’s website now lists award information for all of the Research Council grant and award recipients

On behalf of the Research Council, the Chair would like to thank Vice President for Research, Dr. 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 also thanks Dr. Alicia Knoedler, Associate Vice President for Research and Director of the Center for Research Program Development & Enrichment, 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 and Cindy Clark, for the many contributions they made to the smooth and successful transition of the Secretary’s responsibilities. At the May meeting, the Vice President for Research presented the outgoing members (David Boeck, Mark Nanny, K. David Hambright, and Karen Leighly), Elizabeth Butler (served 2009-2011), and Linda Kilby with clocks to show their appreciation for the members’ service.

Discipline	FIP $3,000 and Under
	Number of Proposals Submitted	Number of Awards	Average Award	Percentage of Total Program Expenditures	Percentage of Total Number Awarded
Engineering	0	0	$ -	0%	0%
Physical Sciences	3	1	$2,950	31%	25%
Social Sciences and Education	2	1	$3,000	31%	25%
Biological Sciences	0	0	$ -	0%	0%
Humanities and Arts	4	2	$1,787	38%	50%
Fine Arts	1	0	$ -	0%	0%
Other	0	0	$ -	0%	0%
Totals	10	4		100%	100%

Discipline	FIP Over $3,000
	Number of Proposals Submitted	Number of Awards	Average Award	Percentage of Total Program Expenditures	Percentage of Total Number Awarded
Engineering	2	1	$ 9,200	5%	6%
Physical Sciences	3	1	$ 8,025	5%	6%
Social Sciences and Education	2	1	$14,999	9%	6%
Biological Sciences	9	6	$13,686	47%	38%
Humanities and Arts	6	4	$ 8,358	19%	25%
Fine Arts	2	1	$14,050	8%	6%
Other	4	2	$ 6,006	7%	13%
Totals	28	16		100%	100%

Discipline	Junior Faculty Fellowship Program
	Number of Proposals Submitted	Number of Awards	Average Award	Percentage of Total Program Expenditures	Percentage of Total Number Awarded
Engineering	2	0	$ -	0%	0%
Physical Sciences	5	2	$ 9,625	14%	13%
Social Sciences and Education	9	2	$ 9,625	14%	13%
Biological Sciences	1	1	$ 9,625	7%	7%
Humanities and Arts	11	3	$ 9,625	20%	20%
Fine Arts	3	1	$ 7,750	5%	7%
Other	12	6	$ 9,426	40%	40%
Totals	43	15		100%	100%

---

FACULTY SENATE

FACULTY COMPENSATION COMMITTEE (Norman)

2011-2012 ANNUAL REPORT

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

Membership:

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

Amy Bradshaw (Educational Psychology) (2011-14)

Jie (Lily) Huang (University Libraries) (2011-13)

Nancy LaGreca (Modern Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics) (2012-15)

Allison Palmer (Art) (2011-14)

Cindy Rogers (Economics) (Fall 2011)

Meetings:

· The FCC held five formal meetings on 11/01/11, 12/06/11, 03/09/12, 04/13/12, and 05/04/12 and communicated via email in relation to activities described below.

Activities:

On the request of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FSEC), the FCC undertook the following tasks.

Task 1 – Compensation for the Graduate Liaisons

The FCC Chair corresponded with Lee Williams (Dean of Graduate College) regarding the compensation for the Graduate Liaisons. Dean Williams acknowledged the important role played by the Graduate Liaisons. He further indicated that formally the role of Graduate Liaison is seen as part of a faculty member's service responsibilities and any extra compensation or reduction in teaching/research duties for Graduate Liaison work should be determined on a case by case basis.

Task 2 – Deans' Office Salaries

The FCC undertook a study to review the salaries of deans and deans' office staff in various colleges on the OU's Norman Campus in comparison to salaries of faculty members and directors/chairs in schools/departments/divisions under each dean. A report on this study was submitted to the FSEC. The FSEC requested that the FCC follow-up the above mentioned study with another study to compare deans' office salaries at OU with corresponding deans' office salaries at OU's peer institutions to gain further insight into deans' office salaries.

On its April 13, 2012 meeting, the FCC unanimously elected Nancy LaGreca as its next chair.

---

FACULTY SENATE

FACULTY WELFARE COMMITTEE (Norman)

2011-2012 ANNUAL REPORT

Submitted by SCOTT MOSES, Chair

See http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/fwcreport12.pdf.