Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Faculty Senate (2026 – 2027) Meeting Minutes-Draft

Monday, October 26, 2026

3:30 - 5:00 pm Woolsey Hall, 110A

Present:

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

Absent:

Gilstrap, Jones

Excused:

Kuhlmann, Rutti, Small

Call to Order

President Koop at 3:31 pm

Approval of Minutes

Minutes from September 28, 2026

Informal Statements

Senator Billingham made a statement concerning the importance of reorganization at the university, that faculty are not being made aware of procedures for the merger process or specific proposals, and that the Department of Philosophy was “blindsided” by an order from Academic Affairs to cease accepting new majors for their bachelor’s program and that it is to be discontinued.
Senator Ahmed made a statement concerning the School of Criminal Justice’s status as a receivership and that they are facing both curriculum changes and faculty searches being conducted by individuals from outside the department. He asked the Faculty Senate to explore who is making these decisions and why outside entities may be dictating the research and teaching priorities of the department.
Senator Figy noted that he would contact LAS about having a college council meeting concerning mergers.
Senator Price requested that members of Academic Affairs, particularly the Provost Lounsbery and other officers, be available at Faculty Senate Meetings to answer questions regarding ongoing university reorganization.
- President Koop asked that questions for Academic Affairs be submitted to the Executive Committee so that they can be provided in advance of the meeting.

President's Report

Senate Participation and Communication
- Senators participating remotely need to use Teams
- Official communication from the Faculty Senate will be posted in official channels such as the Faculty Senate Website, SharePoint, or Teams; anyone unsure about the authenticity of any communication should refer to those sources
Academic Unit Reorganization Update
- Faculty Senate resolution concerning reorganizations and consolidations was shared with Academic Affairs and was considered in the creation of their proposal review process
- Academic Affair’s proposal review process is available at
  - https://wichitaedu.sharepoint.com/sites/OfficeoftheProvost/
- Several constituent bodies will have access to the proposals, which will include faculty feedback solicited by the deans
  - Faculty Senate Executive Committee
  - Student Government Executive Council
  - Staff Senate Executive Council
- Faculty feedback at three stages
  - Before Academic Affairs gets the proposals
  - Once “complete,” the proposals will be returned to the colleges and a survey will be distributed by the deans for faculty to share their feedback
  - Executive Committee will serve in an advisory role with access to proposals and feedback, advising Academic Affairs in how to proceed with each proposal
    - Executive Committee has review criteria including feedback from affected college, will look at changes to academic programs, impact on faculty workload, differing tenure and promotion expectations, and evidence of ongoing savings
    - Executive Committee will have approximately 2 weeks to review the proposals
  - Faculty and staff will have about 2 weeks to review the proposals
KBOR visit
- October 14-15
- Trip focused on campus tours and discussions of applied research and workforce partnerships
- Breakfast with Faculty Senate
  - Table discussions
  - Legislative and budget advocacy
  - Student enrollment statewide
  - Reduced Credit Bachelor’s Degree (RCBD) and AI in teaching and research
    - Faculty raised concerns regarding enrollment and retention for students pursuing and RCBD
    - WSU currently partnering with WSU Tech to develop potential RCBD programs
  - U.S. National Call to Action and KBOR’s plan to respond
    - Regents are unclear about how responses will be used downstream and are wary of responses being used for future legislative decisions
U.S. National Call to Action Update
- Advisory committee met to review the response draft
  - Aligned with WSU’s strategic direction established through mission, vision, and strategic plan
  - Grounded in the work the University
- United Academics of KU requested that faculty senates and organizations across the state sign a letter asking KBOR to reject the Call to Action initiative on behalf of Kansas universities
  - President Koop declined to sign the letter at this time
Future Forward: WSU Summit
- AI at WSU
- WSU brand expansion through industry-aligned learning

Committee Reports

Rules Committee
- Presented the following slate of committee nominations
  - Court of Academic Appeals
    - Zelalem Demissie – LAS Nat Sci/Math (alternate, comp. 2025-2028)
  - Accessibility
    - Samanthan Corcoran – Engineering (2026-2029)
  - Planning and Budget
    - Sina Aghaie – Business (2026-2029)
  - Rules
    - Gery Markova – Business (2026-2029)
  - Student Affairs
    - Foudil Latioui – LAS Nat Sci/Math (comp. 2025-2028)
    - Patrica Bradley – Business (2026-2029)
- Slate approved unanimously

Old Business

None

New Business

General Education Learning Outcomes (GELO) proposal 1^st read
- Presented by Samantha Corcoran – Chair of General Education Committee
- Goal to get proposal ready for General Faculty Meeting on November 23, 2026
- General Education Outcomes have not been updated since 2016, prior to the last Higher Learning Commission (HLC) review
- Goals rather than measurable outcomes, needed to align with KBOR Bucket system
- Mapping current curriculum with no new requirements and will function as an overlay on the existing measurable outcomes and will add no new requirements
- Three pages
  - Proposed learning objectives
  - Definitions such as LAS Competencies and NACE Career Competencies
  - Rollout plan from January 2027 – January 2030
- HLC is coming for a review in April 2027, and our last update/alignment happened prior to their last visit 10 years ago
- Four main ideas
  - Who wrote this
    - General Education Committee
      - Samatha Corcoran – Engineering – Chair
      - Sandy Sipes – Business – Basic Skills
      - Jan Wolcott – Business
      - Bill Ingle – LAS Nat Sci/Math
      - Julie Henerson – LAS Humanities
      - Angie Paul – University Libraries
      - Natalie de la Cruz – Health Professions
      - Victoria Opolewski – Education
      - Ted Adler – Fine Arts
    - Student representative
      - Joshua Mallard
    - Ex-officio non-voting members
      - Gina Crabtree – Registrar
      - Sally Fiscus – Associate Registrar
      - Kimberly Engber – Dean of the Cohen Honors College
  - How we worked
    - Proposal was developed over the course of the last academic year and winter break, including 4-5 revisions
    - Goal was to take the university’s existing general education goals and reword them
    - They reviewed the KBOR Bucket system, the nine LAS Competencies, and the five NACE Career Competencies and used these as cross checks for the outcomes
    - Compared WSU’s outcomes to the KU Core 34 and K-State 8 outcomes
    - Used Bloom’s taxonomy for a shared set of action verbs, so each outcome described something a student could do and a faculty member could recognize
    - Focused on making the math requirement more explicit and how math related to the qualitative and communication outcomes
  - What we’re proposing
    - Critical Thinking
      - Old: Think critically and independently
      - New: Students will ethically gather, analyze, and interpret information from a variety of credible sources; recognize the influence of personal bias; and develop and communicate well-supported conclusions.
    - Effective Communication
      - Old: Write and speak effectively
      - New: Students will generate clear, organized written and oral communication to express ideas and thoughts and effectively exchange information, ideas, facts, and perspectives.
    - Analytical Reasoning
      - Old: Employ analytical reasoning and problem-solving techniques
      - New: Students will deconstruct and analyze complex problems by applying mathematical principles and/or integrating qualitative methods into problem solving.
    - Breadth of Knowledge
      - Old: Having acquired knowledge in the arts and humanities, social sciences, and the natural and physical sciences
      - New: Students will identify and explain foundational concepts, theories, and methodologies in arts and humanities, social sciences, and the natural and physical sciences.
    - For each outcome, there is alignment listed in the crosswalk showing how each proposed GELO aligns with KBOR Buckets, LAS Competencies, and NACE Career Competencies
  - What comes next
    - Mechanism for adoption of new GELO
      - Faculty map new GELO in their syllabus
      - Resubmitted into CIM system
      - Department and college review the course’s GELO alignment
      - General Education Committee approval
      - Registrar updates catalog
    - Phased rollout
      - January 2027 through January 2030
      - Five phases; separated by KBOR bucket (not priority)
- General Education Committee is asking for comments and suggestions regarding the wording of the outcomes and timing of the rollout
- Senator Billingham – strongly suggests the Senate not support the proposal because these criteria restrict and oversimplify what faculty teach in their academic units
- Senator Castro – shared same concerns as Senator Billingham and asked if the alignments on the crosswalk are restrictions on which outcomes a general education course can claim to satisfy based on their existing measurable learning outcomes
  - Corcoran – these not restrictions, just alignments with current Buckets/Competencies; any course can apply to satisfy any GELO, subject to Gen. Ed. Committee approval
- Senator Boynton – asked for clarification on the inclusion of qualitative methods into the Analytical Reasoning (GELO 3) and whether it is deliberately being added to the outcome alongside mathematical (quantitative) analysis
  - Corcoran – the addition of quantitative methods was deliberate, proposal wants to cover both quantitative and qualitative analysis
- Senator Nelson – GELO 3: concerned that direct alignment of analysis with Math does not capture learning in other areas of campus, such as literary or musical analysis
- Senator Boynton – lots of requirement being juggled in the crosswalk, and urges that faculty be OK with the proposal if there is a place to “put their stuff,” such as analytical reasoning components in their courses
- Senator Price – first, even though Effective Communication is aligned with Buckets 1 & 2, English and Communication, History could add that as a GELO for their courses? Second, when we update our syllabus, do we just list what GELO we meet, cut and paste from existing goals/outcomes, upload, and we’re off to the races?
  - Corcoran – Yes to both
- Senator Allen – summarized his understanding that GELO 1-4 will be part of the university general education policy and that the alignment with Buckets/Competencies in the crosswalk will not be policy and understood as background to how the GELO will be used, and that the Faculty Senate and later general faculty will vote on both the GELO and implementation timeline. Believes it would be helpful to outline role of new GELO, the comparison with existing outcomes be spelled out and distributed to clear up potential confusion, and that the proposal aligns with the Senate/Faculty’s authority
- Senator Castro –Effective Communication focuses on written and oral communication, but does not mention the arts, one of our most powerful forms of communication
- Senator Billingham – even though discussion today has noted that any general education course is eligible for any GELO, he thinks that the crosswalk’s mention of specific buckets for certain GELO will confuse faculty
  - Corcoran – the crosswalk mapping is not meant to be prescriptive
- Senator Boynton – logistics of aligning courses with outcomes that are not spelled out as matching the bucket could be cumbersome and create extra work in the review/approval process; this would be much easier to implement if there was an assumption that courses for a particular KBOR Bucket “auto-qualify” for the aligned GELO instead of having courses stretch to try to justify qualifying for additional GELO
- Senator Bowen – would it be helpful to remove discipline names from the Bucket alignments?
  - Corcoran – bucket names are from KBOR, but that could help clarify the chart
Department Chair Policy proposals 1^st read
- Presented by Susan Castro – Chair of Faculty Chair Policy Review Taskforce
- Goal to get proposal ready for General Faculty Meeting on November 23, 2026
- Faculty Chair Policy Review Taskforce has been focused on improvements to policy and the revision of inadequate procedures and outdated guidelines
- Last year, expanded electorate to include NTT faculty
- Process for adoption of policy changes
  - Faculty Senate Executive Committee, Rules Committee, and Taskforce
  - Executive Committee
  - Faculty Senate (1^st & 2^nd reads)
  - General Faculty (November 23, 2026)
  - WSU administration
- Today’s proposals:
  - Impasses
  - Chair Selection
  - Interim Chair Appointments
- Impasses
  - Current policy has deans as the arbiter in impasses between themselves and a department, so the suggestion is to have the Associate Vice Provost of Faculty Affairs take this responsibility
  - Proposed timelines are important to review, both each piece of the process and the overall time to resolve an impasse
- Chair Selection
  - Departments are often electing chairs at the last minute, so there are suggestions to think about the election and training process earlier to have time whenever possible
  - Senator Billingham – is “good and sufficient reason” defined in the document?
    - Castro – No, this is old language, but the good and sufficient reason may be confidential and not sharable by the dean. Having the AVP of Faculty Affairs oversee the process allows that information to be shared with them to ensure fairness or start the impasse procedure.
  - Senator Solomey – has concerns about chairs of departments with graduate programs and wonders if units could add additional restrictions
    - Tew – expressed similar concerns for departments that require accreditation
    - Castro – something to consider as an explicit amendment is an additional line that specifies that a department may add additional restrictions to chair eligibility in their by-laws
  - Senator Allen – supports allowing departments to add their own restrictions to chair eligibility; suggests a language change in 2c from “term limit” to “term”; notes that current language allows for instant runoffs (in the same meeting) or ranked-choice voting; quorum includes people who are candidates but may not be voting (due to by-laws preventing a candidate from voting for themselves)
  - Senator Castro – current language allows for a candidate to vote for themselves; consider if this needs to be modified
- Interim Chair
  - Covers 4 situations of chairs being absent or unable to fulfil their role
    - On leave and will return
    - Chairs who are resigning mid-semester
    - Chairs who are removed
    - Chairs affected by reorganization of an academic unit
  - Possible for external searches to result in not hiring a candidate within one semester, so interim appointments can be extended beyond a single semester
  - Senator Boynton – concerning part 6: Can anything be done in the case of merged departments and selecting a chair? How do we convene the electorate instead?
    - Sen. Castro – intention was for a majority of the electorate to override a dean’s appointment, but it is not clear from the current wording and would welcome language to amend this section
  - Senator Billingham – agrees that ambiguous language in part 6 should be fixed, especially if the electorate can override a dean’s appointment. Also, is it required that an interim chair be a member of one of the two departments being consolidated? What does part 7 address? What is a department with no members? We should consider removing this section.
  - Senator Bannister– how long can a search for a chair be suspended if they are seeking an external hire? Their department currently has an interim chair from outside the department with no expertise in the area and this has damaged the department.
  - Senator Newbold – for departments that have a failed search, it should be a requirement that the chair have academic expertise in the subject matter of the department to main intellectual and institutional legitimacy for leadership
  - Senator Tew – interim chairs are also subject to accreditation requirements
  - Senator Allen – for part 6, we could just require the selection process be followed in the event of the creation of a new department; since we can consider the current chair term as “ending”
  - Senator Myose – Biomedical engineering existed prior to housing faculty and an interim chair was hired prior to making several hires, and so part 7 has a reason to be part of the policy
- Proposed amendments due by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4th

As May Arise

Senator Musaji – 4^th Annual Health and Research Summit on April 16^th, will send out a save the date and informational link to faculty so that they may participate
President Koop – university wide program review committee composed of all faculty units and Executive Committee and checks out all programs up for review that year; and programs not meeting requirements are flagged and given options for action plan, phase out, or other options
Senator Billingham – wants university to not take part of U.S. National Call to Action; Executive Committee’s role is a vestige from Policy 2.10 and should not be the place where faculty have input into the merger proposals and that the full Faculty Senate be involved
Senator Boynton – notes that mergers resolution language from Faculty Senate does include provision to Executive Committee to provide confidential feedback

Adjourn

Meeting adjourned at 5:02 pm

Next Meeting

November 9, 2026, at 3:30 - 5:00 pm, 110 Woolsey Hall

Minutes prepared by Nathan Thompson