Faculty Senate (2026 – 2027) Meeting Minutes-Draft
Monday, September 28, 2026
3:30 - 5:00 pm Woolsey Hall, 110A
Present:
Aguirre, Ahmed, Allen, Asmatulu, Bannister, Beck, Billingham, Boynton, Butler, Castro, Celestin, Chesser, Cooper, Dai, Dowling, Dudley, Figy, Flores, Gilstrap, Griffith, Jamkartanian, Jones, Kim, Koop, Kreinath, Krsmanovic, Kuhlmann, Loibl, Lynch, Mee, Musaji, Myose, Nelson, Newbold, Nicks, O’Bryan, Ott, Owen, Price, Puskarevic, Rani, Rutti, Sager, Sarionder, Small, Smith, Solomey, Swindle, Terry, Tew, Thompson, Twomey, Vasquez, Wang, Williams, Young, Zhu
Absent:
Ramanan
Excused:
Bowen
Call to Order
- President Koop at 3:30 pm
Approval of Minutes
- Minutes from September 14, 2026
Informal Statements
- Senator Myose made a statement concerning the vote conducted last meeting, raising concerns of disenfranchisement since the issue was not on the agenda and there was not time to discuss it with constituents prior to the vote.
- Senator Billingham made a statement concerning the large number of guests in attendance for the discussion of the merger policy resolution.
- Motion to change agenda to discuss resolution before the President’s Report
- Moved by Senator Billingham
- Seconded
- Motion failed
- Senator Dowling made a statement concerning the proposal on the agenda, stating that it is not presented as a resolution and should be allocated to the Rules Committee or a task force. Additionally, she questioned the process by which the resolution was brought forward, invoking the rule of five Senators representing three divisions but those names are not signed onto the proposal.
- Senator Castro made a statement in response to Senator Dowling stating that the names of the five sponsoring Senators were sent to President Koop via email and that there is no time to allocate this to a committee because the deadline for consolidation is December.
President's Report
- Faculty Workload Policy Update
- KBOR faculty workload and post-tenure review policy in January 2026
- Currently working on consolidating all sections modified by subgroups into a single working document
- Clear agreement between working group faculty, executive committee members, and administrators on the structure of the policy
- Goal is to develop a university-level framework with colleges and units plugging in their details, as they are best suited to handle disciplinary, programmatic, and accreditation differences
- Unit Reorganization Update
- Proposals sent back to colleges for their feedback
- Provost has invited the Faculty Senate’s input into how merged units come together, such as determining things like the electorate, by-laws, unit name, chair selection, etc.
- Academic Unit Reorganization Task Force
- Will consist of representatives from faculty, staff, and Academic Affairs
- Intended to develop guidance for a more permanent process
- WSU National Call to Action Advisory Committee
- US National Call to Action on August 3
- US Department of Education Secretary asked all institutions of higher learning to post a public statement by 2026
- Statement should include status pertaining to admissions, free expression, intellectual pluralism, affordability, academic rigor, research integrity, and national service
- Response is voluntary, not tied to federal funding
- KBOR’s approach
- Recognizes the importance of having a statewide response
- Asked the six state institutions to write individual responses based on their mission
- Will gather these responses and prepare a statewide answer
- WSU’s approach
- President Muma put together an advisory committee to assist in developing an institution-wide response
- Each dean and the Faculty Senate President were asked to recommend two individuals to help the administration identity significant programs, initiatives, and policies as well as perspectives, outcomes, and other examples or evidence to share the bigger picture and strengthen the university’s response
- Wichita State’s response will be aligned with the university’s strategic direction, established through its mission, vision, and strategic plan
- Institutional response is due to KBOR by November 6
- Faculty Senate nominations for the advisory committee
- Raina Rutti – Business
- TJ Boynton – LAS Humanities
- US National Call to Action on August 3
- KBOR Faculty of the Year Awardees
- Dr. Imran Musaji
- Communication Sciences and Disorders
- Tenure-track
- Dr. Suresh Keshavanarayana
- Aerospace Engineering
- Tenured
- Dr. Amy Drassen Ham
- Public Health Sciences
- Non-tenure track
- Dr. Imran Musaji
- KBOR updates
- Reduced credit bachelor’s degree – name changed to Bachelor of Specialized Studies
- Post-tenure review update
- Academic Affairs Committee approved giving the board chair, in consultation with the president and CEO of KBOR, the authority to decide post-tenure review appeals
- Higher education needs to be evaluated statewide to ensure success over the next 30
to 50 years
- KBOR President Bonds-Raacke has a vision for how to start preparing for this, including an outside, forward-looking review of Kansas Higher Ed
- Discussed changing environment facing institutions and students, such as enrollment cliff, changing student demographics, etc.
- In response to these challenges, Emporia State proposed to downsize its campus to support 3,500 students, approximately half of the former number
- Base budget has not changed since last year, but the costs have increased and $34M must be requested again to restore prior funding
- Counsel of Faculty Senate Presidents (CoFSP) meeting report
- Shared timeline for review of AP/CPL score review
- Confirm or request a change by November 2026
- Significant discussions of flat funding and enrollment, which we also see at WSU
- Faculty of the Year Award due in January 2027
- Shared timeline for review of AP/CPL score review
Committee Reports
- Rules Committee
- Nomination for the Court of Academic Appeals
- Christie Henderson, Education, 2026 – 2028
- Approved unanimously
- Nomination for the Court of Academic Appeals
Old Business
- Academic Integrity annual update – Alicia A. Martinez Newell, AVP of Student Affairs
- Working to assess and evaluate Academic Integrity reports to better partner with colleagues and faculty to address challenges and concerns related to academic integrity
- Presentation focuses on actions related to Policy 2.17
- There were 166 reports last year with 142 moving forward in the process and 24 cases “info only”
- 132 cases where a student accepted responsibility after speaking with their instructor, 10 cases where students wanted to engage the AI procedure and empaneled a hearing board
- Faculty commonly may not report because “conduct office does nothing”
- 2 of the 10 cases resulted in violation
- Cases that did not result in the violation are due to the faculty member not showing up to the hearing or not submitting evidence in support of their claim
- Added cameras to OSAT to improve security of testing services, resulting in 18 students being caught on camera cheating while taking exams
- Shared demographic information about case types and breakdowns by college and noting
common violation types
- Unauthorized possession of materials
- Plagiarism
- Artificial intelligence-related concerns
- Seniors and first-year students were responsible for the majority of reports
- Domestic students are more likely to be reported than international students, with over 70% of cases
- October and May are the months when most reports are submitted
- Late reporting causes delays to student outcomes, including graduation and enrollment delays
- Student Conduct needs more faculty from most colleges available to hear AI cases and
resolve cases in a timely manner, noting that the following colleges need more representation
- LAS (5)
- Engineering (4)
- Business (3)
- Education (4)
- Fine Arts (3)
- Honors (2)
- Thanked faculty for their partnership in helping students understand their mistakes and get back on the right track
New Business
- Resolution proposal submitted by Senator Castro
- Senator Castro – pointed out last meeting the difference between discontinuance and
mergers in her informal statement and posted a proposal for a Faculty Senate resolution
outlining the process that should be used instead of Policy 2.10 / Program Discontinuance,
notes that the Faculty Senate voted that Policy 2.10 is inapplicable to the restricting
initiative that began last year and is now formally proposing the resolution. The
process is meant to protect programs that serve students and the university mission,
personnel required to support the programs, affinity and professional identity, and
transparency and voice in developing the departmental vision. Three amendments to
the proposal are being brought forward to deal with pressing issues in the proposal,
and Senator Castro supports all three.
- Staff
- Voice
- Financial
- Motion to accept the resolution on conduction of the merger process
- Moved by Senator Castro
- Seconded; opened for discussion
- Amendment proposed by Senator Newbold
- Amendment focuses on role of staff in academic departments, extending employment protection to them during merger process, and prescribing a process for reassigning staff if necessary
- Motion to accept amendment
- Moved by Senator Newbold
- Seconded; opened for discussion
- Senator Billingham – how do we reconcile roles of consolidated staff
- Newbold – staff continue in their role while the merger is happening
- Senator Castro – staff were consulted and have concern about due notice, being asked to do work beyond their capacity, and treated as if they do not count
- Senator Williams – supports staff 100%, but Faculty Senate constitution has no authority over staff, and does not believe that this is the place for those conversations to occur
- Senator Musaji – believes the intent of this policy is to require conversations with faculty about consolidation and should not interfere with correct procedure
- Senator Myose – asks if this would be more meaningful if it came from the general faculty meeting
- Senator Billingham – Faculty Senate does not write policy for the university, but multiple places can be the initiating authority, including the Senate which can address any topic deemed necessary and therefore believes that it is not out of line for Staff to be included in this proposal
- Amendment accepted 44 – 10
- Amendment proposed by Senator Sager
- Amendment focuses on the role of faculty voice during merger considerations, including having more input much earlier in the process
- Motion to accept amendment
- Moved by Senator Sager
- Seconded; opened for discussion
- Senator Castro – was excited about merging when affinity statements were being developed, believes that departments should be involved in the process of developing a vision rather than being stuck with it
- Senator Newbold – faculty of department due for mergers have not read or contributed to the things written about them and cannot serve students without having a shared role in the process
- Senator Musaji – supportive overall, but affinities are not defined in the proposal and should be addressed
- Amendment accepted 47 – 4
- Amendment proposed by Senator Solomey
- Amendment proposes that financial considerations be part of consolidation considerations, since they are part of new program proposals and need to be a component of consideration
- Motion to accept amendment
- Moved by Senator Solomey
- Seconded; opened for discussion
- Senator Boynton –last week we rejected 2.10 on the basis that it cannot be triggered on financial reasons and are now providing a financial justification for program mergers; this is more complicated than the previous two amendments which just expanded on its spirit
- Senator Castro – pointed out last meeting the difference between discontinuance and
mergers in her informal statement and posted a proposal for a Faculty Senate resolution
outlining the process that should be used instead of Policy 2.10 / Program Discontinuance,
notes that the Faculty Senate voted that Policy 2.10 is inapplicable to the restricting
initiative that began last year and is now formally proposing the resolution. The
process is meant to protect programs that serve students and the university mission,
personnel required to support the programs, affinity and professional identity, and
transparency and voice in developing the departmental vision. Three amendments to
the proposal are being brought forward to deal with pressing issues in the proposal,
and Senator Castro supports all three.
- Motion to extend meeting to 5:30
- Approved by majority
- Amendment proposed by Senator Solomey (cont.)
- Senator Myose – College of Engineering laid off 3 faculty and 4 staff; in favor because financial considerations are necessary
- Senator Musaji – only complaint with original proposal is that the term “financial exigency” causes confusion, as exigency must be declared by KBOR and individuals may claim this policy doesn’t apply because KBOR has not made the declaration; we’re eliminating positions and saying that we don’t have the money to not consolidate, so we meet every definition except for the KBOR declaration
- Senator Dudley – in agreement because the university is a business and needs to be able to make business decisions; should allow administration to make consolidation decisions over discontinuation
- Senator Boynton – understands that the vote against Policy 2.10 / Program Discontinuance was a vote in favor of the principle that that we’re not going to use financial considerations to get rid of faculty and are now turning around and embracing a financial rationale for the firing of faculty or at least mergers and restructuring; doesn’t make sense to replace what we voted against last time with the very thing we objected to
- Senator Castro – huge difference between discontinuation and merging; firings can happen under discontinuation, and procedure recommendation is trying to avoid that for mergers
- Amendment accepted 32 – 14
- Amendment proposed by Senator Solomey (cont.)
- Approved by majority
-
-
- Friendly Amendment Proposed by Senator Musaji
- Replace “financial exigency” with “primarily financial reasons” to clear confusion about a declaration of financial exigency
- Accepted by unanimous consent
- Senator Myose – Do we need a second read? Do we need to bring this to the general faculty?
- President Koop – resolutions do no need second read; if the merger policy task force develops specific recommendations, that would need to go before the general faculty
- Senator Dowling – lack of transparency is the cause of her opposition, specifically that this is a policy disguised as a resolution and it was not made known which 5 senators representing 3 units brought this forward
- Senator Billingham – Senators are elected to represent units, do not have to poll all faculty before making decisions
- Senator Nelson – College of Fine Arts not targeted by consolidations, but constituents consulted generally support it
- Senator Beck – faculty he spoke to had more questions than comments, but received basically no feedback from his constituents in Biology
- Senator Nicks – echoed Senator Beck’s comment about Nursing Faculty’s disinterest in responding to information about this proposal
- Senator Young – member of impacted department, department is support of the resolution
- Senator Krsmanovic - the handful of constituents I've heard from are in favor of the resolution, greater transparency from administration, and greater consideration for overall faculty morale
- Senator Griffith – mergers have great potential affect curriculum and faculty are the sole owners of the curriculum
- Senator Swindle – his department was told they were going to be merged, then told they were not; warns individuals who are ambivalent about this issue from strong departments that they should be concerned because their departments might not always be strong enough to avoid the impacts of consolidation
- Alex Middlewood – chair of Political Science, a department being considered for merger;
urges faculty to support resolution as an expression of their support for shared governance
- Full statement available on Faculty Senate SharePoint
- Senator Newbold – departments in LAS under consideration for consolidation are strong departments who have brought in millions in funding, have received excellent KBOR evaluations, and her department is not being included in consolidation discussions despite being ranked in the top 20 nationwide in public budgeting and finance; university expertise in public sector budgeting is not being utilized
- Resolution adopted 46 – 2
- Friendly Amendment Proposed by Senator Musaji
-
As May Arise
None
Adjourn
Meeting adjourned at 5:21 pm
Next Meeting
October 26, 2026, at 3:30 - 5:00 pm, 110 Woolsey Hall
Minutes prepared by Nathan Thompson