The University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)
Regular session – March 8, 2010 – 3:30 p.m. – Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206   phone: 325-6789
e-mail:   web site:


The Faculty Senate was called to order by Professor Aimee Franklin, Chair.


PRESENT:       Ahmed, Apanasov, Asojo, Atiquzzaman, Baer, Bass, Blank, Bradshaw, Conlon, Cox-Fuenzalida, Dial, Eodice, Franklin, Gan, Grasse, Hahn, Kent, Kershen, Kimball, Lauer-Flores, Lifschitz, Mitra, Morrissey, Moses, Moxley, Muraleetharan, O’Neill, Palmer, Reeder, Russell, Sadler, J. Schmidt, Stock, Strauss, Tabb, Trafalis, Vehik, Verma, Wallach, Williams, Yi

Provost's office representative:  Heiser
ISA representatives:  Cook, Hough

ABSENT:         Deacon, Jean-Marie, McDonald, Milton, Rogers, R. Schmidt, Taylor, Weaver, Wyckoff






Faculty Tribute

Committee nominations

Digital tenure dossiers

Posting course materials to

UOSA elections


Retirement presentation and panel discussion

Remarks by Wellness Coordinator

Remarks by Associate Provost and Integrity Council

Senate Chair's Report:

Faculty death


PACWI conference


Retirement management committee

Faculty Senate Apportionment for 2010-13

Smoke/Tobacco-Free Campus

2013-14 Academic Calendar

Research Council charge

Concealed Carry on Campus






Prof. Yi suggested that the last paragraph, the ninth sentence, of the February Senate Chair’s Report should be clarified.  Prof. Franklin suggested that the language should reflect contributions to OTRS as well as defined contribution plans and should read, “OU pays all of the contribution to the defined contribution plan.  For some people it is retirement contributions are up to 20 percent of their salary.”  The Faculty Senate Journal for the regular session of February 8, 2010 was approved as amended. 





The Tribute to the Faculty will be Thursday, April 1, at 3:30 p.m. in the Sandy Bell Gallery of the Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art.


Nominations for faculty to serve on councils, committees, and boards are due to the Faculty Senate office by March 12.  Prof. Franklin suggested that individuals might want to volunteer for more than one committee because there could be a need in one area but not another.


President Boren approved the Faculty Senate’s endorsement to move to electronic tenure and promotion dossier submission and review, provided the proper security provisions and adequate central administration support are in place (see 12/09 Faculty Senate Journal).  He also approved the Faculty Senate’s proposal that would require faculty to post syllabi and recommend the posting of course materials on the course management website ( or to post a link for the materials on there (see 2/10 Faculty Senate Journal).  Prof. Franklin noted that the recommendation will take effect in fall 2010.  IT will have instructions on that will make it simple for people to post their syllabi.  


“The UOSA Election Board wants to inform all the faculty and staff of the upcoming Spring UOSA Elections (March 30-31). It is important that all of the faculty and staff do not send emails on behalf of the candidates. It is also imperative that you do not [act on behalf of a candidate] while on duty as an employee. If candidates ask to campaign in the classroom, it is up to the professor's discretion if he/she allows the campaigning. If permitted, campaigning is only allowed before or after instructional time. Under no circumstance can campaign materials be left in the classroom.  Violating any of the campaign rules will directly affect the candidates themselves. Please adhere to the rules provided above to enable the student body to have a successful and fair election.” UOSA Election Board


OU is competing in RecycleMania, a national recycling competition and waste reduction initiative.  Recycle your paper, plastic, aluminum, and cardboard on campus to participate.  All OU faculty and staff are invited to take a quick survey March 2-4 about recycling practices and preferences for a chance to win $500 in Sooner Sense, donated by Housing and Food Services.  The survey can be accessed at  See for more details and for information on OU’s sustainability efforts.


The College of Business is sponsoring a presentation and panel discussion of retirement choices and prospects on Friday, April 9, in Adams Hall 255.  A particular focus will be on the issues confronting University of Oklahoma faculty and staff.  The featured speaker and panelists are national and state experts on retirement planning, factors that affect the decision to retire, and satisfaction in retirement.  RSVP to Cathy Little at 325-5591 or by April 5. 





Mr. Rollins distributed a handout showing what has been accomplished and what is planned.  Health screenings are scheduled for April 26-30.  The program will be the same as last year.  He will send postcards requesting people to RSVP.  Appointments will run from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. the entire week, and they also will take walk-ins.  Screenings will be held on the Tulsa campus and HSC campus on April 26 and 27.  Everyone who participates will receive an incentive.  The screening entails a finger stick and will produce a full lipid panel of total cholesterol and total glucose, waist-to-hip ratio, BMI, height with weight distribution, and health coaching.  It takes about 10-15 minutes for the process, and participants receive their results then.  Last year, 1,900 employees were screened.  Mr. Rollins hopes to increase the number to 2,500 this year. 


Weight Watchers at Work began in September.  Over 250 employees from the three campuses participated last year.  As a group, they lost 2,600 pounds or an average of 11 pounds per person.  The program did so well that Weight Watchers is interested in finding out what we did that could increase participation in other organizations.  The University is offering an incentive by paying half the fee.  More information about the program is available at 


The annual report for 2009 will be ready in the next two weeks and will be sent to the Faculty Senate and Staff Senate to distribute.  It will include the employee assistance program utilization, the biometrics screening utilization, aggregate data on what our campus looks like as a whole, information regarding satisfaction and customer service, and the number of pounds lost.  Prof. Mitra asked whether any of the data would be split into different groups.  Mr. Rollins replied that some reports will be more detailed; others will just have aggregate information.


The first annual 5K Fun Run and 1K Walk will be held the first weekend in September.  Employees can participate as teams or individuals.  Mr. Rollins welcomes suggestions on ways to make it a larger scale event.  The Health & Exercise Science Department held a 10K race on March 6, and 250 people participated.  Mr. Rollins said he would like to beat that number.  He could put together walking groups and running clubs to prepare for the annual event.  It will be a good opportunity for people to work toward a fitness goal.  Prof. Moses suggested a bicycling event.  Mr. Rollins said he is considering a bike event next spring.


Mr. Rollins distributed a flyer about the Employee Assistance Program ( to be me.pdf).  He said with the difficult economy and possible changes with the university, he wanted people to know where they could go for help.  The program is through Magellan Health Services and is available 24 hours a day/7 days a week.  Faculty and staff can encourage another employee to contact the EAP.  It is a free service for all university employees.  They do not have to be part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance, and it is in addition to what takes place at Goddard.  Questions or suggestions may be sent to Mr. Rollins at





Associate Provost Greg Heiser explained that the campus-wide integrity system has been in place and largely untouched since the early 1980s.  For the 2008-09 academic year, 225 cases went through the system; 37 cases were contested and went to a hearing.  Those numbers have not changed much for a while.  In the late 1990s through the early 2000s, with the cohort of students who had Internet access through their high school years, we started to experience an upswing, peaking in 2004 with approximately 400 cases.  Following some changes in the system, we went back to around 200 cases, with 20 going to a hearing.  For 2008-09, there was a noticeable uptick in the number of contested cases.  So far for 2009-10, 132 cases have been filed.  Mr. Heiser said his other title is director of Academic Integrity Systems.  He introduced assistant director Breea Bacon, as well as Elizabeth Miracle and Zekiel Johnson, from the Integrity Council, a student group that assists the provost with academic integrity issues.  He noted that the Integrity Council had changed its name from Honor Council because it was getting confused with the Honors Council of the Honors College.


In terms of numbers, OU has about 20,000 students on the Norman campus, about 200 cases of academic misconduct annually, and about 20 contested cases that go to a hearing.  Mr. Heiser said we should focus on fairness, transparency, and clarity at each of those levels.  For the cases that go to a hearing, we need a system that is fair and clear and that gives no particular group of students any kind of advantage.  It is easy for people to focus on the hearing issue.  Most faculty members do not file charges unless the evidence is quite clear, and in most cases the students take responsibility for their actions.  Many times, students may be unclear about the rules of plagiarism.  Most students think of themselves as people with integrity.  We could do more to get the word out that integrity really matters.  The message has a lot more resonance when it comes from students primarily. 


Ms. Miracle, vice chair of the Integrity Council, said she runs the membership drive.  She asked the faculty to encourage students to apply for the council.  She also handles the day-to-day work within the council and facilitates the peer education.  Mr. Heiser said a program was started this semester called DYUI – Do You Understand Integrity – for students who are found guilty of academic misconduct.  Ms. Bacon said the program was modeled after a program at the University of California-San Diego.  It is a five-class seminar that explores the deeper concepts of academic integrity.  The first class is on plagiarism.  The remaining classes include defining academic culture, reenacting an academic misconduct hearing, and doing case studies.  They are putting together a program, “What I wish I would have done before coming to OU,” to present at Norman High School.  All of the students do some type of community service project.  The pilot program is going very well, and students are being assigned to next fall’s session. 


Mr. Heiser pointed out that students often assume they already know about integrity.  What they learn as undergraduates will form the basis for them to learn about professional integrity codes if they go to graduate school.  Graduate College Dean Lee Williams has been working on research ethics.  Mr. Heiser believes we need something like that at the undergraduate level.  Ms. Miracle added that she serves as a student member of the hearing boards and, along the faculty on the board, decides whether misconduct has occurred and what the sanctions will be.  Mr. Heiser said it is crucial to get the word out about integrity.  In the past, the council has had events such as integrity week, where they challenge students about what they know.  It can engage students if they think of themselves as someone who might be called on to be a judge and to have policy ideas on what the university ought to be doing in this area.   


Mr. Heiser said he had some concerns about where the system is going.  Partially as a result of social forces and market pressures, students might not be aware that certain things count as academic misconduct, for example, signing a classmate as present, working together and turning in substantially the same paper, and copying from Wikipedia or the textbook.  The system is extremely adversarial; it tends to pit faculty against students and vice versa and has faculty taking the role of prosecutor.  Students and faculty are confused as to whom they are supposed to talk.  Mr. Heiser showed a diagram of our current system compared to what the students would like to propose.  The student proposal appears to be simpler.  It begins when the instructor files a charge when he or she believes there has been misconduct.  The student goes to the Student Conduct Office (formerly Campus Judicial Coordinator) and may then go to UOSA general counsel for help with his or her case.  The Academic Misconduct Board will hear the case, and a recommendation will be made to the college(s) and to the Provost.  Our current system is complex.  The proposed system would allow anyone to report misconduct through the Integrity Council.  Mr. Johnson added that the Integrity Council is having discussions with UOSA general counsel and with the UOSA director of academics on how to formalize the new process to make it simpler for students to understand.  Ms. Miracle commented that she, along with Mr. Johnson and Ms. Bacon, went to an academic integrity conference in October and got to see how the systems at other schools work.  It started a dialog on how to improve our system.  Mr. Heiser said he would like a sense of whether the faculty thinks this is a reasonable direction.


Prof. Kent remarked that the focus was on a small minority of students who contest an academic misconduct allegation.  When he checks his students’ papers against the Turnitin site, a large number have plagiarized.  He said the data from educational associations indicate that 75-80 percent of students will cheat in their academic careers.  The focus, instead, should be on a more comprehensive system with stiffer penalties.  Mr. Heiser replied that the procedural aspect is not the only effort being pursued.  We ought to have more educational components since students seem to have a misunderstanding of what it means to do college-level work.  We need to get the word out on that.  An informal survey done by a colleague at another university indicated that not many institutions suspend students on their first offense these days.  Prof. Kent commented that students think it is okay to cheat because that is part of the system.  Mr. Heiser said he hoped to have a clear message that comes from students.  Ms. Miracle said she was pleased that students who go through the DYUI class are becoming some of the most vocal supporters of changing the system to provide more education and have been speaking out against academic misconduct.  More education opens a dialog between students. 


Prof. Palmer noted that a lot of faculty members are hesitant to turn students in because of our current system.  With a more streamlined system, the number of cases may go up.  Mr. Johnson said the council is trying to create a culture of integrity on campus, which involves educating students as well as making it easier for faculty file charges and for students to go through the charges.  Hopefully, programs like DYUI will educate the student body.


Prof. Kershen mentioned that after Prof. Franklin talked about the Turnitin program last fall, he made it mandatory for submissions to a journal he runs.  Very few reports came back with any problems, but there was one significant case.  The Law school has a strong integrity system, and the incident was dealt with in an appropriate manner.  When faculty members find something significant, they have to be willing to fail a student on a paper or the course.  It has to have a consequence. 


Prof. Kent brought up the adversarial nature of the system.  When four out of 11 students cheated on an assignment last semester, it had a big impact on his teaching evaluations.  He said he thought we should have some other method to evaluate faculty, such as a peer review system.  If instructors increase their vigilance, they will suffer because of it.  Mr. Heiser responded that only the professor can initiate the process under the current system.  Students themselves may care enough to report misconduct.  The next step will be a draft of a model system that could be examined by all the stakeholders.  Mr. Heiser said he values faculty input during the drafting stage. 



SENATE CHAIR'S REPORT, by Prof. Aimee Franklin


Prof. Tim Ragan, retired faculty in Educational Psychology, passed away March 7.  His funeral will be on March 11.


Boomer Sooner textbooks has offered an inducement to instructors if they will require their students to purchase certain textbooks or instructional material.  The provost reminds instructors that they cannot compel students to buy books at a certain place, and faculty should not get any remuneration in helping them in that decision. 


The Provost’s Advisory Committee on Women’s Issues and OU ADVANCE, which is an NSF-funded grant project, are having a presentation on April 1 at 1:30 called, “Are Women Faculty Just Worrywarts?: Accounting for Gender Differences in Self-Reported Stress.”  Everyone is invited to attend.


State legislators signed a budget bill that addresses the current fiscal year.  For 2010, higher education will take an overall 3.5 percent cut.  Legislators were able to achieve this by borrowing from the state Rainy Day fund as well as using federal stimulus dollars.  Other state agencies are experiencing larger cuts, perhaps 10 percent or larger.  Although legislators tried to protect education, the outlook still looks bleak for FY11.  Revenues are down about 30 percent from the estimate.  They agreed to take $223 million from the Rainy Day fund and use that to start the budget process next year.  They still report a $1.2 billion deficit that they have to close next year.  Lately, the state has been getting more revenue from oil and gas than projected.  The Faculty Senate Executive Committee, Faculty Compensation Committee, the Employment Benefits Committee, and the Budget Council have been gathering suggestions for strategies to cover expenses and raise revenues.  The Executive Committee shared several ideas with President Boren and stressed we should have a combination strategy and should not have permanent cuts for a shortfall that could be temporary.  The committee cautioned the president that there should not be one single fix and that the faculty does not want a 20 percent cut across the board to our defined contribution plan.  The faculty wants to look at multiple options and be in on the discussion before decisions are made.  The long-term viability of the institutions as well as the short-term financial hole should be considered because of the significant impact on our ability to retain and attract faculty.  President Boren received the remarks well and encouraged the Faculty Senate to continue the discussion. 


President Boren agreed to add a faculty representative as well as a staff representative to the retirement management committee.  Prof. Muraleetharan will represent the Faculty Senate.  This committee is discussing the third-party vendor and the financial options for our defined contribution plan





The apportionment of the Faculty Senate recommended by the committee (attached) was introduced in February.  The College of Liberal Studies and the Graduate College submitted amendments (attached).  Prof. Franklin distributed a spreadsheet (attached) to show the impact of amendment 1, 2 and 3, which is a combination of 1 and 2. 


Prof. Muraleetharan commented that it might be simpler to increase the total number of senators by one or two seats.  Prof. Franklin responded that such a floor amendment could be proposed after the first three amendments were discussed.


Prof. Trafalis, representing Graduate College, introduced amendment 1.  Summarizing, Prof. Franklin said the main change was the addition of the last sentence – “Degree-recommending divisions with no faculty members will be allowed to appoint a faculty member as an ex officio member with all the rights and privileges of senate membership excluding the right to vote in official Faculty Senate actions” – which would allow the Graduate College to have an ex officio member.  Prof. Strauss asked how the Graduate College was represented in the original proposal.  Prof. Franklin said the college currently has a seat but would have no seat under the original proposal.  Prof. Strauss asked about folding the college into the pooled programs.  Prof. Franklin said that would not work because the college does not have its own faculty.  Previously, the policy awarded a seat to any degree-granting unit.  The Graduate College gives more than one-third of all degrees issued on this campus.  Graduate College dean Lee Williams believes an ex officio would serve the purpose of providing information between the Faculty Senate and the college.  Prof. Verma commented that all members of the Graduate College are faculty members in other colleges.  Prof. Franklin said the idea was someone on the Graduate Council would take responsibility for reporting on senate activities.  Senator Trafalis gives a report on the Faculty Senate at the Graduate Council meetings and brings information back to the senate.  Without the amendment, there would be no guarantee that a senator would be on the Graduate Council.  Prof. Strauss mentioned that Faculty Senate meetings are open, so the Graduate College could designate a person to attend the meetings.  Prof. Franklin responded that non-senators may speak only by invitation or permission.  Prof. Muralee said he thought it was valuable to have discussion between the Graduate College and Faculty Senate.  Amendment 1 was approved, with one opposed. 


Prof. Palmer introduced amendment 2.  Answering procedural questions, Prof. Franklin said if this amendment was approved, it would strike the original language as well as amendment 1.  After the senate votes on the amendments, the original proposal as amended would be voted on.  Prof. Adams said the goal was to ensure that all faculty had a voice and representation.  Non-senators potentially cannot speak at the meeting.  It was not the intent to eliminate representation for other areas.  The Liberal Studies faculty actually endorses amendment 3 because it provides equitable representation for all colleges.  Some colleges are just beginning to add faculty and thus have small numbers, but they would still like to have a voice.  Prof. Franklin summarized that the primary change is Liberal Studies and Aviation would each have a seat with amendment 2.  Prof. Muraleetharan asked about the meaning of “one seat to each degree-recommending division that has faculty appointed to that division.”  Prof. Adams explained that Liberal Studies is a degree-granting college but was put in a pool because of the small number of faculty.  Prof. Franklin said they were put in a pool of 18.8 faculty, including the Honors College, the President, the Provost Direct, and the Writing Center.  With amendment 2, the pooled programs with less than one percent of the faculty would not have a seat.  Prof. Adams said that was not the intention.  Prof. Franklin said that was why there was an amendment 3.  Replying to Prof. Apanasov’s question, Prof. Adams pointed out that there is something to be said about faculty having representation regardless of the numbers.  Colleges with small numbers need to have some kind of connection and voice.  Prof. Sadler asked whether the Aviation program with one faculty member actually wanted to be on the Faculty Senate.  Prof. Strauss said it would affect the allotment to give one seat to someone who never attended.  Prof. Adams said because the College of Continuing Education (Outreach) and Liberal Studies share the same dean, CCE Aviation could be combined with Liberal Studies in amendment 2.  Prof. Strauss said it seemed to him that Liberal Studies would be represented in the original proposal through the pooled program.  Prof. Adams countered that Liberal Studies would like more direct representation.  If Liberal Studies is placed in a pool with units that have potentially different concerns, the college may not have the same kind of direct connection.  All of the faculty members are renewable term faculty and as a stand-alone unit might have separate issues and concerns.  Prof. Franklin noted that the Aviation faculty is also renewable term.  Prof. Kent commented that many colleges are very diverse, and a senator may not be representative of his or her whole college.  Prof. Bradshaw said she was interested in an equitable solution and looked at how many faculty it took to get a senate seat.  With the exception of IPC, which has 12, the others range from 16.5 to 30 faculty per seat.  It seems inequitable to give one seat to 3.5 faculty.  Prof. Kershen asked about the change from 47 to 48 seats in the non-pooled programs in Amendment 2.  Prof. Franklin explained that Amendment 2 had an unintentional error in that Liberal Studies would get a seat, and the pooled programs with less than one percent of the faculty would lose a seat.  Prof. Verma said he thought the same rationale for voting for Amendment 1 would apply to voting for Amendment 2.  Prof. Franklin explained that Amendment 1 would not give the Graduate College a seat.  It would allow them to have an ex officio member so they could participate in the discussion but not vote.  Prof. Blank said a lot of departments do not have representation but have a large number of faculty.  They depend on senators communicating to them through their college.  Prof. Adams responded that those communications take place within a college.  Honors and Liberal Studies are two different colleges.  Prof. Blank said departments in Arts & Sciences are radically different from each other.  Prof. Morrissey asked about the number of departments on campus and whether any departments had two Faculty Senate representatives.  Prof. Eodice said there are upwards of 120 departments.  Prof. Franklin said some departments have more than one senator.  Arts & Sciences apportions its senators by four areas.  Amendment 2 failed by a show of hands, 5 in favor, 21 opposed, with 3 abstentions. 


Prof. Franklin said Amendment 3 was a technical change to Amendment 2, so it should be withdrawn unless someone wanted to bring it forward.  No further amendments were made from the floor.  The original proposal, as modified by Amendment 1, which added an ex officio member for the Graduate College (attached), was approved on a voice vote.  Prof. Muraleetharan asked whether the proposal would allow Liberal Studies to have an ex officio seat.  Prof. Franklin said as a degree-recommending unit with faculty, they would be in the pool, which would have a vote to determine that seat. 





Prof. Franklin reminded the senate that a resolution (attached) was introduced last month.  Prof. Bass asked about the percentage of faculty and staff who smoke on campus.  She said she was worried that a smoke-free policy would infringe on a person’s rights.  An individual’s break should be his or hers and he or she should be able to smoke.  People are aware that they should not smoke.  Prof. Moses said the resolution was written to give the administration flexibility in implementing the policy.  It would not exclude designated smoking areas in certain locations.  Prof. Palmer asked whether the resolution would allow people to smoke in their cars.  Prof. Franklin said it would be up to the administration to enforce the resolution.  She said she had heard that people at the HSC had a van that drove smokers around.  The motivation was not to tell people they should not smoke; it was to take into consideration the impact of second-hand smoke and the financial impacts of smoking on employees.  Prof. Verma noted that the Tulsa campus was smoke free.  Prof. Grasse asked if anyone could say in a quantitative way what the

additional health benefits would be.  Prof. Moses replied that the National Institutes of Health say heart attacks go down by an average of 17 percent in one year, the largest reductions being in non smokers.  Prof. Baer said the current policy is that all buildings are smoke free, and smokers must be at least 25 feet from an entrance.  Prof. Moses said the current policy is not working well.  Prof. Palmer added that it is not being enforced.  The resolution was approved by a voice vote, with six opposed and two abstentions.





Prof. Franklin said the Faculty Senate Executive Committee recommended that the academic calendar for 2013-14 be affirmed (attached).  The fall semester would start August 19 and end December 13, and the spring semester would start four weeks later on January 13 and end on May 9.  At some point, because of leap year, we have to reset and shift a week.  Prof. Gan asked if the difference was just one day – from August 20 to August 19.  Prof. Franklin said that was correct.  The Faculty Senate approved the 2013-14 calendar on a voice vote.





Prof. Franklin explained that the main change proposed in the Research Council charge would accommodate interdisciplinary areas (attached).  The Research Council has two faculty members in each of six areas and one in Fine Arts.  A faculty member in an interdisciplinary area, such as International Programs Center, would determine his or her primary area and could nominate himself or herself for that seat.  The added sentence reads, “Any unit that has its own tenure line is eligible to nominate someone whose discipline matches the call for a disciplinary area listed as having vacancies.”  Other changes reflect new titles and names of offices.  Prof. Franklin asked the senators to get feedback from their colleagues and bring any concerns or suggestions to the meeting in April.  The senate will vote at that meeting.





Prof. Franklin said the Faculty Senate Executive Committee had learned from Mr. Danny Hilliard, OU’s legislative liaison, that the concealed carry bill did not make it out of committee at the state legislature, but it could be added as an amendment.  Also, there is a proposed bill that would allow non concealed carry on campus.  Prof. Franklin said the Executive Committee had written a resolution regarding concealed carry (attached) for the senate to vote on next month.  Prof. Eodice moved to have the senate vote on the resolution at this meeting.  Prof. Franklin pointed out that the senate had adopted a similar resolution two years ago by electronic vote during Spring Break.  The resolution is drawn in part from a template provided by the Faculty Advisory Council to the State Regents.  Prof. Conlon said she was a member of the advisory council for a while; the resolution was very much in keeping with the discussions of the council.  The resolution was approved on a voice vote, with no opposed or abstentions. 





The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.  The next regular session of the Faculty Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, April 12, 2010, in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.


Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator


Amy Bradshaw, Faculty Secretary