Faculty Senate (2026 – 2027) Meeting Minutes

Monday, September 14, 2026 

3:30 - 5:00 pm Woolsey Hall, 110A

Present:

Aguirre, Ahmed, Allen, Asmatulu, Bannister, Beck, Billingham, Bowen, Boynton, Butler, Castro, Celestin, Chesser, Dai, Dowling, Dudley, Figy, Flores, Gilstrap, Griffith, Jamkartanian, Jones, Kim, Koop, Kreinath, Krsmanovic, Kuhlmann, Loibl, Mee, Musaji, Myose, Nelson, Newbold, Nicks, O’Bryan, Ott, Owen, Price, Puskarevic, Ramanan, Rani, Rutti, Sager, Sarionder, Smith, Solomey, Swindle, Terry, Tew, Thompson, Twomey, Vasquez, Wang, Williams, Young, Zhu

Excused:

Lynch, Small

Call to Order

  • President Koop at 3:30 pm

Approval of Minutes

  • Minutes from August 31, 2026 approved

Informal Statements

  • Senator Castro made a statement concerning the application of Policy 2.10 / Program Discontinuance and will be proposing a resolution to address the existing university policy gap at the next Faculty Senate meeting
  • Senator Figy made a statement concerning library policy, faculty knowledge of the policy and its applications, and the need for clearer communication about the policy and the reasons for its implementation
  • Senator Musaji made a statement concerning faculty internal awards, how they were restored immediately after faculty found out they were suspended, and his unsuccessful attempts to gather information about the issue, including a KORA request that the university did not respond to

President's Report

    • Update on academic integrity flow revisions
      • Since last spring, Student Affairs Committee has been working on reviewing and revising the reporting and resolution process for academic integrity reports
      • Goal is to make reporting more efficient and timely while preserving fairness and student rights
    • Faculty compensation peer group review
      • Executive Committee (Ex Comm) participated in a Segal focus group, a consultant hired by Human Resources
      • Solicited faculty input on which institutions make sense as current peer and aspirant universities; the group of universities that Wichita State compares itself to determine compensation
      • New peer group will be developed throughout the fall
    • Access to Faculty Senate materials
    • Faculty Senate operations update
      • Rules Committee is reviewing rules to formalize publication of meeting minutes for all Standing and Ad Hoc Faculty Senate committees
      • Ex Comm meeting minutes will be available on Faculty Senate SharePoint
      • Faculty Senate meeting room is now available
        • Ex Comm will be meeting there soon
        • Other Faculty Senate and Standing and Ad Hoc Committees are encouraged to reserve the space for their use
        • Contact Lee Ann Birdwell for reservations
      • Faculty Workload Policy
        • Will be discussed this week by the working groups developing the subcomponents of the proposal
        • President Koop is leading the collection of suggested changes into one document and knows it is important to circulate it early so that senators may take a deep look and share it with their constituents

Committee Reports

  • Rules Committee
    • Nominations made for the Senate (Joseph Urick, Fine Arts/Perf Arts, Spring 2027 – 2028) and General Education Committee (Christina Glennen, CHP/Nursing, 2026 – 2028)
    • Approved unanimously

Old Business

  • None

New Business

  • Faculty input into department restructuring process
    • President Koop discussed the meeting that the Ex Comm had with Provost Lounsbery and Associate Vice Provost Muether about Academic Affair’s application of Policy 2.10 to the current university restructuring
      • Conversation focused on governance, such as which policies protect faculty rights when units are restructured and where those policies fall short
      • Asked if Policy 2.10 is an appropriate venue for handling department mergers, if faculty input was going to be solicited throughout the process, and if that input would be documented early on and added to the proposal
      • Also asked Academic Affairs if there was an avenue for recourse and whether college town halls about the issue were recorded and information discussed there could be provided to faculty who were not present
      • Provost Lounsbery and AVP Muether pointed to gaps in policy, such as how new units will be governed, named, and how faculty will be reappointed to the new units
      • Stated that the Ex Comm recommended that Academic Affairs provide some guidance or a policy supplement in writing to faculty to address the gap between 2.10 and its use for restructuring and that the Senate provide input for that guidance
    • Ex Comm would have a role in the process if Policy 2.10 is used to govern restructuring, providing confidential feedback about the proposals at an early stage
    • Restructuring proposals are in development; none have been provided to Ex Comm or approved
    • Senator Billingham – The policy is inadmissible, but if the administration decides to proceed anyway, Ex Comm’s role is part of the process. If discontinuance moves forward, the policy states that the Faculty Senate President will at the next Senate meeting bring forth the proposal for a full Senate vote of agreement or disagreement. Asked is President Koop will commit to bring future proposals to the Senate if it reaches that stage.
      • President Koop – developing the policy addendum would be the place to address that.
    • Senator Dowling – Asks that the proposed policy resolution be directed through the normal process of consulting with the Rules Committee, rather than going directly to the floor of the Senate. It may be premature, and it could be beneficial to the Senate to have a more normal process for the development of guidelines for any deviations from the discontinuance policy to support unit restructuring or mergers.
      • President Koop – goal of Ex Comm is to make the process as transparent and consistent as possible by developing a set of criteria that will be applied when we have these proposals on the table
    • Senator Castro – The University makes strong distinction between policy and procedure, with policies taking years to get through all approval steps. We are moving forward now with restructuring, and a resolution will express the voice of the faculty, “halt that freight train” (of restructuring) a little, and give the faculty input into the process. This is a process or a procedure. It is not a policy. We still will not have a policy, and it will be years before we have one. Agrees that we should have the Rules Committee or task force working to develop a policy for the future but stresses that an immediate stopgap is needed to improve the process, which contains some very bad features. Offered a draft of the resolution to members following the meeting.
      • President Koop – There is a shared understanding that a policy will need to be developed. We need something in place that would address the gaps pertaining to faculty input, workload distribution, and department leadership. We should work together as a body to have mutual input into the process and collaborate with Academic Affairs to develop a common understanding of what a policy addendum should look like should the university continue with restructuring.
    • Senator Newbold – Thanked Senator Castro for her contribution to help affected departments (current and future). Expressed on behalf of her LAS constituents that there is an overwhelming animus regarding these restructures. Faculty are frustrated and feel as if they are not a part of governance or decision making. It is very disturbing that program discontinuance is seen as a merger. Six departments are being discontinued. It is not a merger in the eyes of those outside the university in the media.
    • Motion for Senate to say Policy 2.10 / Program Discontinuance is not applicable for the merging of two or more academic departments
      • Moved by Senator Newbold
      • Seconded; opened for discussion
      • Senator Price – Use of this policy sets precedent.
        • Pres. Koop – Senate and Academic Affairs acknowledge that there is no policy to directly guide how to proceed with department mergers. Would allow Provost Lounsbery or AVP Muether to speak to why Policy 2.10 should be used. Notes that 2.10 has a shared governance structure.
      • Senator Figy – If we do nothing, what are the consequences? Also, we could look at this as an opportunity to innovate in affected departments.
      • Senator Musaji – By Policy 2.10, decisions cannot be made based on financial exigency. Policy only applies to academic decisions.
      • President Koop – Reiterates that Senate is not here to discuss Policy 2.10. Agenda item is for discussion about how faculty can bring their input into the restructuring process.
      • Senator Bowen –
        • Asked for clarification: No current restructuring proposals are before Ex Comm?
          • Pres. Koop – Confirmed that Ex Comm has seen no proposals
        • Why are these proposals being made? What does this aid and why is this so urgent? What efficiencies are being achieved and why must it be done now, considering there is no clearly applicable policy, and the proposed policy is being misused.
          • Pres. Koop – Wants Academic Affairs to address this
        • Is the text of these proposals available?
      • Senator Billingham – Last year, small academic departments in LAS were told by the dean to find larger departments to merge with or they would be found for them. Rationale for this would be provided later but was rooted in budgetary concern, with the demand for budget cuts and efficiencies coming from Academic Affairs. Now, it looks like a policy selection was made after the fact to justify the proposed mergers.
      • Senator Castro – Vote for motion would acknowledge what we all know, Policy 2.10 does not apply to the current situation. Important to formally acknowledge that so we can proceed with the next step and have some processes, procedures, and shared governance. Resolution proposal for next meeting is one way to do that, with amendments and discussion to exercise faculty voice and provide a better alternative to Policy 2.10.
      • AVP Muether – Granted time by President Koop to address questions related to the motion on the floor
        • Campus community found out last year a 7% cut would be necessary for FY27 (current fiscal year), meaning a $5.2 M cut to Academic Affairs
        • Shared statement from Provost given to unit leaders in January 2026 concerning the budget cuts announced at that time; unit restructuring was part of the instructions given at the time
        • Listed meetings held by colleges, including town halls, chair and director meetings, department gathers, and other communications related to the financial situation and necessary structural changes
        • Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP) was announced in late February to defer budget reductions until the end of 2026 and will commit those funds in FY28 to new faculty hires
        • April 2026 – Met with deans to review final FY27 budgets, including $700k of deferred savings that need to be found for next fiscal year across 5 colleges: LAS, CHP, Ed, Eng, & Honors
        • May - July – deans met with leadership and impacted units concerning reorganization and should be developing formal proposals to bring to the Provost
        • Aug - Sep – Share feedback and finalized reorganization proposals should be brought forward to the Provost, discuss implementation, and have plan to inform procedures and practice to optimize reorganization; met with Ex Comm on Aug 31 to discuss process
        • Shared timeline for potential reorganizations, if they proceed
        • Profiles are being reviewed for resource availability, alignment with the university mission, long-term trends, how they serve student well-being, and university commitment to faculty
        • Elements like new unit name, bylaws, leadership structure, etc. need to be determined
        • Policy 2.10 is not a program development policy, and shared steps are meant to supplement 2.10’s shared governance structure
      • President Koop – Encouraged tabling the discussion due to the agenda item being faculty input into the restructuring process and not specifically the application of Policy 2.10, reminding senators that not all members may be prepared to discuss this policy or have their constituents’ input
      • Senator Solomey – Worries that destruction or delay of the suggested process could lead to a worse crisis, shared information about how the Illinois Institute of Technology had to fire 120 faculty due to lost foreign graduate student tuition, and encourages faculty cooperation here
      • Senator Musaji – AVP Muether’s comments confirm this is about budget, so 2.10 cannot be used. Disputes claim that the process has been transparent, and that a proposal has already been voted on without faculty knowledge of the use of 2.10 to develop these proposed restructures. Says that his unit did not know of several required proposal components specified by 2.10 that were not present in the voted-on proposal, and they would have had questions about those components if they knew to ask.
      • President Koop – Ex Comm will take these points into consideration during their proposal review and develop and share their review criteria with the Senate
      • AVP Muether – We are not in a place of financial exigency. Pointed out that the policy is meant to address movement of resources and quoted from the introduction of Policy 2.10 to back up this point.
      • Senator Musaji – Also quoted 2.10 to state that redirection of resources must significantly enhance the university mission and is based on bona fide educational rationale
      • Senator Dowling – 2.10 is not on the agenda, agrees it is not directly applicable, and suggests that we table the motion to resume discussion at the next meeting. Can we stand up a task force or provide a policy supplement that applies to this specific situation?
      • Motion to Table
        • Moved by Senator Dowling
        • Seconded; opened for discussion
        • Musaji – decisions will already be made by the time Senate acts if we table the vote
        • Billingham – It is confirmed that the university is not in a state of financial exigency. Notes that GU funding is stable compared to last year; $5M cut to Academic Affairs and an increase of $6.7M to Other Operating Expenses in Athletics budget, and this item has never been supplemented by GU funding at this level in the past
        • Pres. Koop – Further budget discussion is not relevant to the current issue and can be brought up in the future
        • Newbold – LAS has seen proposals and was not involved in any decision making regarding possible restructuring; the way this process has been handled so far is demoralizing and feels it is important for faculty to act to be part of governance rather than just be governed
        • Dowling – Notes discussion is not permitted for motion to table
        • Motion Failed
      • Question called at 4:55 pm
      • Motion Passed – 26 to 7
    • Motion to extend meeting by 5 minutes
      • By President Koop
      • Approved unanimously
    • Motion to move this item to next meeting
      • Academic Integrity annual update by Alicia A. Martinez Newell, AVP of Student Affairs
      • Approved unanimously

As May Arise

  • None

Adjourn

  • Meeting adjourned at 5:02 pm

Next Meeting

  • September 28, 2026, at 3:30 - 5:00 pm, 110 Woolsey Hall

Minutes prepared by Nathan Thompson