�Ը�������

FACULTY SENATE 

Meeting Minutes 

December 8, 2025

Senators Present:  Ann Abraham, Loretta Aller, Bob Antenucci, Omid Bagheri, Tina Bhargava, Casey Boyd-Swan, Matt Butler, Jennifer Cunningham, Mark Dalman, Ed Dauterich, Omar De La Cruz Cabrera, David Dees, Vanessa Earp, Julie Evey, Michele Ewing, Michael Fisch, Michelle Foster, Tianyuan Guan, David Kaplan, Sean Kennedy, Terri Kent, Velvet Landingham, Richard Mangrum, Mahli Mechenbier, Oana Mocioalca, Ashley Nickels, Vic Perera, Linda Piccirillo-Smith, Helen Piontkivska, Lydia Rose, Susan Roxburgh, Athena Salaba, Jim Seelye, Deborah Smith, Gregory Smith, Eric Taylor, Brett Tippey, Francisco Torres, Ikram Toumi, Lauren Vachon, Laurie Wagner, Theresa Walton-Fisette, Christopher Was, Kyle Winkler

Senators Not Present: Janice Kroeger, Taraneh Meshkani, Lockwood Reynolds 

Ex-Officio Members Present: President Todd Diacon; Kevin West for Executive Vice President and Provost Melody Tankersley; Senior Vice President Eboni Pringle; Senior Vice President Jeannie Reifsnyder*; Vice Presidents: Sean Broghammer, Doug Delahanty, Amoaba Gooden, Doug Kubinski, John Rathje, Charlene Reed, Randale Richmond, Peggy Shadduck, Valoree Vargo,  Stephen Ward; Deans: Sonia Alemagno, Christina Bloebaum, Allan Boike, Ken Burhanna, Alicia Crowe*, Versie Johnson-Mallard, Mark Mistur, Deirdre Warren for Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Elizabeth Piatt*, Amy Reynolds, Scott Sheridan*, Alison Smith, Deborah Spake      

*Interim 

Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Dean Diane Petrella

Observers Present: Emeritus Professor Janson, Ms. Shiza Nisar (GSS)

Observers Not Present: Ms. Hanna Sietz (USG)

Guests Present: Asli Arikan, Michael Beam, Autum Boone, Bryan Caldwell, J.R. Campbell, Sue Clement, Tammy Clewell, Cristin Compton, Scott Courtney, Andrew Crawford, Steve Dennis, Chris Dorsten, Shannon Driscoll, Don-John Dugas, Kieran Dunne, Dolores Elder, Susan Emens, Mary Gallagher, Sarah Gray, Kim Hahn, James Hannon, Tony Hardin, Jocelyn Harrison, Jennifer Hebebrand, John Jewell, Bryan Jones, Kristina Kamis, Michael Kavulic, Jennifer Kellogg, Mourad Krifa, Dana Lawless-Andric, Jessica Leveto, Joanna Liedel, Aaron Maguire, Jennifer Marcinkiewicz, Kristen Marcussen, Shelley Marshall, Miriam Matteson, Julie Mazzei, Jennifer McDonough, Emily Metzgar, Eric Mintz, Tracy Motter, Amy Nuesch, Christa Ord, Brady Oxender, Susan Perry, Amy Quillen, Dirk Remley, Kara Robinson, Susan Rossi, Debbie Rozner, Sarah Smiley, Star Solomon, Jillian Sokso, Therese Tillett, Lauren Vogel, Adil Wadia, Jennifer Walton-Fisette, Kevin West, Sonya Williams, Sharon Wohl, Gina Zavota, Haithem Zourrig, Melissa Zullo

1.          Call to Order 

Chair Kaplan called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. in the Governance Chambers, Kent Student Center. 

2.       Roll Call 

   Secretary Dauterich called the roll.  

3.         Approval of the Agenda

A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda (Bagheri/Cunningham).

The agenda passed unanimously. 

4.       Approval of the Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes of November 10 and November 24,  2025

 Chair Kaplan asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the November 10, 2025, Faculty Senate meeting. 

A motion was made and seconded (Mocioalca/Tippey).                      

The minutes were approved unanimously as written.

Chair Kaplan asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the November 24, 2025, Faculty Senate meeting. 

A motion was made and seconded (Tippey/Gregory Smith).                 

The minutes were approved unanimously as written.

5.      Chair’s Remarks

Chair Kaplan began by talking about the nominations that went out for Faculty Senate elections. He encouraged present senators and non-senators to apply if they are interested. He also talked about possible changes to Faculty Senate meeting procedures and voting due to past glitches. Chair Kaplan took responsibility for this. He said we would like to follow parliamentary procedure more closely, change the way the Teams link for meetings is distributed (to help encourage in-person attendance), and provide a technological solution to allow anyone to observe on a separate channel. All of this would maintain flexibility and improve access.

He then invited comments or questions.

Senator Taylor asked whether Secretary Dauterich was willing to receive emails about attendance for the meetings.

Secretary Dauterich said that he was willing.

Senator Taylor asked why there would be a separate channel or stream for different attendees.

Chair Kaplan explained that it was to help keep clear who was eligible to speak and vote and who was not.

Senator Piontkivska asked whether the link would be included in the agenda email. She implied that it would increase the difficulty of attending. 

Chair Kaplan asked why asking for the link would be onerous.

Senator Piontkivska said it added extra steps for no benefit.

Senator Bagheri said that regional campus representatives would love to be in attendance when possible, but they would appreciate having the link in case of emergencies and for reasons of efficiency.

Chair Kaplan acknowledged the senators’ concerns.

Senator Rose echoed the concerns about access expressed by the other senators.

Chair Kaplan asked whether anyone was in favor of the change.

Senator Butler said it is a hardship and a challenge, especially for regional campus representatives, and he encouraged Faculty Senate to use the technology that is already present.

Senator Bhargava asked whether permissions could be used in Teams to solve the problem.

Chair Kaplan agreed to look into it.

Senator Kent said that if the spirit of the change is to get people to come in person, then it should not be treated as a matter of convenience. She supported doing things in person, and she mentioned reticence among her colleagues across the university to be present for meetings. She said there was a difference between hardship and inconvenience.

Senator Taylor appreciated the online calendar link being forwarded and liked the idea of having permissions added as well. He asked for the link to continue to be sent out.

Senator Rose asked whether the link could be forwarded to all colleagues.

Chair Kaplan said it could be, but he would like streams to separate voting members and ex-officio members from other attendees.

Chair Kaplan asked for a show of hands to see what people wanted.

Senators (by a show of hands) indicated that they would prefer things to remain the same.

Senator Tippey said he respected Vice Chair Abraham’s and Secretary Dauterich’s counting of the votes, but he wondered whether we need to go to a roll call for all votes.

Senator Mocioalca suggested votes online should be written in the chat.

Chair Kaplan said if we can keep senators grouped together on a separate stream, then it would be easier to count votes.

Vice Chair Abraham said she would be concerned about writing the vote in the chat because some people are in person and others are on Teams; it could cause confusion.

Chair Kaplan agreed roll calls were good alternative to a voice vote.

Senator Bhargava asked how representation in elections would work since units have moved due to T28.

Chair Kaplan explained that (per the Faculty Senate by-laws) we will keep the same units for this election, and the representation will be updated for the following election.

Senator Boyd-Swan said there must be some technology we can use where we can limit votes to voting members.

Senator Wagner said that she sometimes joins Teams in the room because the presentation screen is hard to see in the Governance Chambers. She supported the live streaming idea, but she asked for better accessibility in the room.

Senator Torres said that Teams does have a polling option.

Chair Kaplan said he will look into the possibilities and thanked everyone for their feedback.

There were no further comments or questions.

6.       �ʰ���������Գ�’s&�Բ�����;��𳾲������

President Todd Diacon mentioned that he had reported on budget cuts outside of academic affairs in April 2024, and he added that in August of this year, he agreed that the reductions could be revisited now that some time has passed. He then gave a report on the cost reductions.

He said that in every year since 2017, we have reduced expenses 10-12 million dollars per year on a budget slightly over 700 million dollars. Even with T28, we will still be looking at reducing expenditures between 5 and 8 million dollars per year. He added that declining enrollment, halving of enrollment on regional campuses over the last decade, the impact of the state’s cohort model for tuition and room and board, and the inability of state support to keep up with inflationary costs are all challenges we face. He said he was glad the state had a capital budget that allows universities to get funding, but he said that the amount that is put into that budget in real dollar terms is the same today as it was in 2003 (about 320 million dollars). State funding is not keeping up with inflation.

He continued, saying that the number of employees in the president’s office has been cut. The office went from 18 to five employees including him. Jeannie Reifsnyder’s position was not refilled when Mark Polatajko retired. The university restructured their debt for a one-time savings of 4 million dollars and an ongoing savings of 880, 000 dollars per year. In addition, they contracted with a new pharmacy benefits manager that allows the university to avoid 1.6 million dollars in expenditures. They ended a number of university-wide memberships which will save 145,000 dollars per year, and they eliminated paper versions of the �Ը������� magazine and commencement program, saving 100,000 dollars per year.

Since 2024, the Division of Student life reduced expenditures by 5 million dollars per year. Reductions in the division included employing fewer people, putting off high priced expenditures, ending other university memberships, and reducing travel.  He said that they will reduce expenditures there by a further 1-2 million dollars in the next fiscal year.

There will also be a new agreement for the use of the Schwartz center that will save 800,000 dollars per year.

He expressed the hope that the state will help with money to demolish unoccupied buildings. He acknowledged the worries of faculty concerning reduced budgets for academic affairs, but he said much of it goes beyond money; it is the end of a 60-year approach to public universities in the United States. The commitment to funding is not the same one that we had in the past. He said that all of the assumptions he had in the past about the importance of and the way in which research is funded, about standard workloads, about tenure, about what percentage of college of high school graduates would attend college, and about why one would even attend college are experiencing monumental changes of late. He added that we are living through a once in a century transformation which is larger than any one of us, yet it is a transformation that impacts every one of us. 

President Diacon ended by listing some recent donations. �Ը������� received a $1.8 million grant from the Bedford Falls Foundation, which will provide $350,000 per year for scholarships for nursing students. The university also received a grant of $1.7 million from the Prentice Foundation to support the Mobile Flashes program in our College of Public Health. In addition, we have received a $1.4 million donation to athletics from a single donor. We received an additional $1,000,000 donation from the DeLillo family to support repairs and infrastructure work at the Porthouse Theater. There was also another $1,000,000 donation from Roe Green to support the Porthouse Theater. Finally, there was a $1.5 million dollar donation from the Buda family to support scholarships for �Ը������� Chemistry students.

He said that these donations reflect the excellent work that is being done by �Ը�������’s Division of Philanthropy and Alumni Engagement and thanked Terri Kent in Theater and Dance and Deans Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Sonia Alemagno, and Versie Johnson-Mallard for their work.

He concluded his remarks by saying that he has been involved in shared governance in one form or another for most of his faculty career at several universities, and never in all his years in the profession in four different universities has he witnessed a Faculty Senate that has been called on to do so much in such a compressed time period, and to do so as competently and in as dedicated a fashion as the present one. He added a special note of thanks to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the members of the Professional Standards Committee (PSC).

He then invited comments or questions.

Chair Kaplan thanked him for his remarks.

Senator Deborah Smith thanked him for the update and said she was confused about the actual expenditures from the Education and General (E&G) Kent Campus budget for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. She said that the responsibility centers (colleges) were cut to the tune of 2.24% between fiscal year 24 and 25. Academic affairs overall grew just slightly at 0.24%. She noted that the president's office shrank 3.96%, but she said that all of the other divisions, regardless of cuts and reduced personnel, had offsetting expenses such that their expenses grew. She added that the expenditures in the Division of Student Life grew 148.52% between those fiscal years.

President Diacon said that he could not recreate the Faculty Senate Budget Advisory Committee (FaSBAC) meeting that covered the details. He asked Senator Smith to notice that in his remarks, he had mentioned cuts and expense avoidance. He said that the budget is still growing by millions of dollars every year because we give raises, the cost of health care increases, the cost of liability insurance increases, and we have new requirements placed on us by the state. He explained that we are cutting expenses, but we are also engaged in cost avoidance despite the rising costs he had mentioned. He said that the rising costs were budgeted to divisions and that Interim Senior Vice President Reifsnyder could explain this in much more detail.

Senator Deborah Smith said that she understood the rising costs of the areas President Diacon had mentioned, but she said that the Kent Campus faculty and administrative salaries live in the colleges, where there was a 2.24% decrease.

President Diacon acknowledged her remarks and said that portion of the budget went down because we have fewer employees. He also agreed that Academic Affairs has suffered.

Senator Deborah Smith said that other divisions, with the exception of the President’s Office, had rising expenditures.

President Diacon encouraged Senator Smith to attend FaSBAC for more details, and he added that as long as we practice healthy financial stewardship, we will be fine. He said that there are many things that we do not control directly. He added that the budget that the state passed has carved out 80 million dollars of what would go to the state universities via a formula. It took out about 10% of the state subsidy of instruction, and instead of granting that via the formula that we follow, it reserves it now. 70 million dollars is reserved on how much return on investment a university’s graduates display in terms of what their salaries are at 5 and 10 years after they graduate. This is not based on the formula, the number of classes passed, or the number of students who graduate. The current budget takes out another 10 million dollars on top of that and rewards it based on the growth in the number of technical associate degrees that are granted at public four-year universities and community colleges. He said that the way the budget bill was written means that there will be a 1.4 million dollar transfer from public four-year universities to community colleges. He then encouraged people to pay attention to FaSBAC’s meetings for more details.

Senator Deborah Smith asked whether there was something said at FaSBAC that made her numbers inaccurate.

President Diacon replied that Interim Vice President Reifsnyder is good at explaining the numbers, and senators are good at asking questions at FaSBAC. He added a comment about the growth in scholarship competition across the state; he said that there is a massive competition for a declining number of students. Many universities are offering deep discounts in the form of merit-based scholarships that do not take financial need into account. These scholarships are offered to prevent students from enrolling in a different public university. �Ը������� spent $20.4 million in 2004 on merit-based scholarships; this year, �Ը������� is spending $70 million. Another university in the state of Ohio that enrolls fewer students than we do, and they now devote $90 million to those scholarships. He said that it is a dramatic increase in how we spend our funds, and we could decide not to do that, but it is all part of a larger bucket of expenditures.

Senator Deborah Smith responded that merit scholarships may be a subset of the scholarship expenditures, but the data she had been given for actual spending was about $74 million for fiscal year 2024 and $77.9 for fiscal year 2025.

President Diacon agreed.

Senator Boyd-Swan said she was at FaSBAC and did not feel she got the level of answers she was hoping to get. She said that if you look at philanthropy and alumni engagement, their budgeted amount was $5.7 million, and their expenditures were over $10 million. She asked whether, given that the budget is something that is constructed based on what we believe the costs are going to be, this was a significant overspend. She said it was great that they could do additional work but wondered whether the expenditures offset the gifts they received. She asked whether it was a blip or an ongoing cost that we can expect to continue.

President Diacon said that the university recently completed a capital campaign, which was charted to raise $350 million and finished at $380 million. He said that we increased budgeting for positions in philanthropy and alumni engagement to work on that campaign, but we are now beginning to dial back those expenditures. He invited Interim Senior Vice President Reifsnyder to speak about this.

Interim Senior Vice President Reifsnyder said that in regard to philanthropy, we budget at the university for the cost of the salaries, and the operating expenses flow through the university but are paid by the foundation. There is an offsetting revenue that comes in to cover all of the differential. On the student life component, we budget what comes out of the E&G budget, but they also operate the auxiliaries and are funded by transfers from the auxiliary operations that are coming in to offset the increase in those costs.

Senator Boyd-Swan said that our subtotal amount still overspent by $15 million.

Interim Senior Vice President Reifsnyder said she could not answer exactly what the senator was looking at but would be happy to discuss the matter later.

Senator Boyd Swan said we cannot discount rate our way out of declining enrollments. She said that while that is a tool we can use, it is not one to rely on as a meaningful way of increasing enrollment over time.

President Diacon said it is probably time for another presentation from the people in enrollment management.

Senator Wagner said it is difficult to listen to talk about the budget with the discrepancies that were presented. She said that she is a member of FaSBAC and was there when these items were discussed, but the administration did not seem to be on the same page at the present meeting of Faculty Senate.

President Diacon responded that he was not claiming that the units outside of academic affairs are cutting the total amounts that he had mentioned. He said that the university is also engaged in expense reductions, but our budget grew $21 million from FY25 to 26 as an institution, so even with far fewer employees, the approved budget grew about $20 million, which he said reflects the 3D squeeze he had mentioned. He said that they will try to do an even better job in FaSBAC of explaining those things, and that they will continue to pursue these efforts.

Senior Vice President Pringle provided clarification about the Student Life budget that is used for 22 departments. She said that the money was insufficient, and when you see increases, it is money from auxiliaries getting used to pay for what they are unable to pay for in the E&G budget. This makes it appear as if the budget is increasing because they have to move the money to pay salaries to run the departments. She added that if you look at actual reductions for the E&G, they amounted to $1 million and that there was also $5.2 million in cost avoidance where they held off construction projects to allow for greater cash flow at the university. She said that this is why it does not look as if they have taken budget reductions; they are pulling from all their auxiliaries, which has an impact.

Senator Bhargava asked President Diacon whether he could explain what the biggest advantages were to the university having a balanced budget.

President Diacon said that the Board of Trustees will not allow a deficit budget; having such a budget makes us stronger in any political discussion about the future of the number of institutions of higher education in the state, and it also allows us to prevent the large number of firings that have taken place at other universities.

Senator Deborah Smith said that she believed the senators and the administrators were talking past each other because she heard the administrators talking about budgets, but the senators were talking about actual expenses. She said that when you look at the university's budget, it was problematic in FY 24. We were almost $10 million over budget. Then, in FY 25, we were about $4.8 million under budget. She said this shows that budgets are really best guesses; although they are not just pulled out of thin air, they are a prediction. She added that the numbers that she and the faculty members of FaSBAC were talking about were not budgets, but rather, actual expenses. They do not reflect transfers from somewhere else. They reflect what was actually spent. She continued by saying that as critical as Student Life is, the colleges are more critical to the mission of the university. She said she saw the colleges’ expenses being cut while other expenses are growing.

President Diacon agreed that the university finished with a positive fund balance of around $4.8 million, but he reminded listeners that they always aim for 1% of the total budget as an end-of -year positive fund balance. He said this would be around $7,000,000. They do that to have some cushion. He said he believed that if they go far beyond that, they are probably not being strategic and generous enough in their spending. He said he was happy that we ended FY25 with a $4.8 million surplus, but it did not meet the goal of 1%. He agreed that, in the end, budgets are budgets and that end-of-year spending is what matters.

Senator Fisch asked what E&G meant.

Interim Senior Vice President Reifsnyder explained that it was the education and general fund. Under fund accounting, there are different types of funds, and education and general is where colleges and administration reside, unlike auxiliary funds like housekeeping and dining.

Chair Kaplan thanked everyone for their remarks.

There were no further comments or questions.

7.     Presentation on Policies Revised by the Administration from Associate Provost Kevin West Policies

Associate Provost West presented a PowerPoint [click ] with revisions to the policies on faculty tenure, retrenchment, faculty workload, faculty annual performance reviews, and post-tenure review. The revisions were made after the policies had been passed by Faculty Senate at previous meetings.

He then invited comments or questions.

Chair Kaplan asked for a motion to approve policies.

Senator Deborah Smith moved to approve the workload policy. Senator De La Cruz Cabrera seconded.

Senator Boyd-Swan said the proposed changes reflected the conversations in both Faculty Senate and the Professional Standards Committee (PSC) and suggested the changes be approved.

Senator Bhargava asked about the statement on teaching percentage norms in the workload policy and wanted to know whether those were to be applied to the academic unit or individual faculty members.

Associate Provost West confirmed the changes were at the academic unit level.

Senator Bhargava asked about workload for faculty on 12-month contracts. She said those on 12-month contracts are being paid at 11/9s of the rate they would get for a full 12 months, but they still have to do 12/9s of the work. She said that the policy seems to state that current non-tenure track faculty who are doing 6.7 workload hours in the summer would now be required to 10 workload hours in summer. She said this was an increase in workload without compensation and wondered whether this was an oversight or an intentional change.

Senator Deborah Smith said this was built in by the PSC. She said they wanted to look at the 12/9s in terms of work. She said it was outrageous that faculty on the 12-month contracts basically have unpaid vacation. The claim from the university is that they have four weeks of paid vacation, but since they are only paid 11/9s, they actually have unpaid vacation. She said this would have to be addressed by some other means than the workload policy.

Senator Bhargava said that in terms of time, the math made sense, but not in terms of pay. She said that it could have been introduced in this as 6.7 to correspond with the compensation for the work that is being done versus compensation for the time period that is covered. She said that if there is going to be an imposition of workload that is 12/9s, then a 12/9s salary would be appropriate or an 11/9s workload which could be addressed by the workload policy.

Senator Deborah Smith said that with almost no exceptions, 12-month faculty were on no credit hour workload for the summer. In most cases they had non-teaching duties. She explained that part of the reason that PSC did not try to address this was because the union had been unsuccessful at getting appropriate pay for these faculty in the past, and they felt it would not get through administrative review if they put it in the policy.

Senator Bhargava asked Associate Provost West whether it was intentional on his part to accept the policy in a format that effectively reduces the per credit hour compensation that some faculty are receiving. She added that for CATS on the regional campuses, they were going from a 6.7 workload to a 10 workload with no increase in compensation

Associate Provost West said he was aware, but not everyone on a 12-month contract was on a 6.7 workload. Some were not on that workload, and the 10-credit hour load aligned with the policy and their assignments. He added that he was presenting the proposal from the PSC.

Senator Wagner asked for clarification in section F about the nature of work differing; she said NTTs do currently get workload for things that are considered part of the job for TT faculty, but she said what seems to be changing in the policy is that it says “workload equivalence for non-teaching duties included in the academic units, regional or regional campus sections of the handbook will apply to any full-time faculty member who fulfills these non-teaching duties regardless of the faculty type.” She wanted to know whether that meant that NTTs could no longer get workload equivalencies for committee work, advising students, etc.

Senator Boyd-Swan responded that if the equivalencies were outlined in the handbook, it would not be a problem.

Senator Wagner said it was not the case in her unit’s handbook.

Senator Boyd-Swan replied that it could still happen, and someone could grant the equivalency in the unit. She added that the policy could not say that any service by NTTs must be given workload equivalency because that could result in no NTTs getting workload equivalency.

Senator Mangrum asked about whether the last slide in the presentation applied to all faculty or just those on the tenure track and added that he knew of at least one 12-month faculty member that is working 7 rather than 6.7 and on a load letter as it should be. He said if it changes to 10, that would be a change brought to their compensation by the PSC and not a contract. He said this was problematic.

Associate Provost West responded that the last slide did apply to all faculty and that in those cases that Senator Mangrum mentioned, they would have to have a conversation with the faculty member about policy changes and laws related to SB1.

Senator Mangrum said that it needed to be made clear that no de facto compensation would be changed by the end of the meeting.

Associate Provost West said that compensation is not an issue with this policy. That is for collective bargaining to work out. He added that he is willing to talk with Sue Clement (KSUFA—FTNTT President) about it, but he clarified that the policy does not change anyone’s compensation.

Senator Bhargava said that emails were sent that record there was a conversation with the Provost and the previous union president that indicated workloads would be set at 6.7. She said that there are currently faculty who primarily teach with their summer workload, and that the new policy would amount to an additional course—quite an increase in workload for no compensation. She said this should be of concern to both TT and NTT faculty. She added that workload equivalencies for NTT faculty were still left open to interpretation by the policy.

Senator Deborah Smith responded that there is language in some handbooks and practices in various academic units with regard to Senator Wagner’s concerns that can still continue with the new policy. Units have always had to get approval from their dean and the Provost, but nothing precludes the equivalencies from happening. She also pointed out that there is language in both the TT and NTT contracts allowing for salary adjustment, which might be appropriate in this context.

Senator Perera wanted to know when the policy would go into effect.

Associate Provost West said it would happen as soon as the Board of Trustees approved it.

Senator Fisch asked where the 6.7 came from in the first place.

Senator Deborah Smith said the former workload policy did not contemplate 12-month faculty and that it was handled on an ad hoc basis.

Senator Fisch asked whether people with a current 6.7 load would now have 10-hour load in July.

Chair Kaplan said that is a conversation that needed to occur.

Senator Bhargava explained that the 6.7 was 11/9s. 36.7 would be 11 months’ worth of work.

Senator Mangrum said that if we pass the policy today, we are passing a pay cut for some faculty.

Associate Provost West responded that the policy speaks to the university as a whole and speaks to workload. Workload is out of the CBA. Compensation can be negotiated in the CBA. He said it is not a de facto pay cut.

Senator Dees said that some faculty had the load in their offer letters when he was a dean and wondered how that might align with policy in the future.

Senator Winkler asked whether faculty who came in as 12-month could renegotiate for a 9-month contract if they did not want the increased workload.

Associate Provost West replied that faculty have made such requests and that such conversations could be had.

Senator Deborah Smith said that it could be a credit hour load for vacation if unit administrators were agreeable to it.

Senator Bhargava said the discussion would be different if we were all adding hours to everyone for the fall semester. She said there are 64 12-month faculty; 48 are NTT, and half of them are regional campus faculty. She said it would be irresponsible not to address the question.

Chair Kaplan asked whether there was a way to resolve the problem.

Associate Provost West said this has already been voted on, and today’s focus was on revisions.

Senator Mangrum said that we are telling a group of people that they have to do more uncompensated work that may not even be available. He saw no reason for why this was happening. He said switching from 12 to 9 months may be difficult in some cases. He believed there needed to be more discussion.

Senator Bhargava asked whether it could be resolved through offer letters. She encouraged doing whatever we already practice.

Associate Provost West said he could not agree to that at this point.

Chair Kaplan said that the presentation was based on revisions, and that Faculty Senate needed to focus on those.

Senator Mangrum asked what the motion was.

Senator Deborah Smith explained that we were voting on accepting the changes made by the administration.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith said she understood Faculty Senate could revise policy and wanted to know whether it could be brought back later for revision.

Associate Provost West agreed that this could happen.

Senator Mangrum asked whether the additional discussion could be a part of the motion.

Chair Kaplan explained the difference between the discussion and the motion.

Senator Mangrum asked whether the motion could be changed.

Senator Boyd-Swan said that in the presentation, Associate Provost West referred to B.1. in a paragraph and said it should have been B.2. It does say B.2. in the policy, but it does not in the presentation.

Associate Provost West said that the policies sent out were the accurate documents.

There were no further comments or questions.

Chair Kaplan moved the question and called for a voice vote.

Results of the voice vote were unclear.

Chair Kaplan asked for a roll call vote.

The motion passed by roll call vote, 30-11.

A motion was then made and seconded to accept the retrenchment policy changes (Mocioalca/Earp).

Senator Dees asked what a “program” is in the policy and wondered who had the voice on how retrenchment would work at regional campuses.

Associate Provost West said that the PSC meant the term “program” to be broad in case an entire program did not need to be eliminated. He said that if you are looking within a program on a regional campus, you could have an instance where you have faculty members at two different locations. The institution is making a decision about reducing the offerings of that program. If the institution has six faculty members associated with that program, three at one location and three at the other, and one location is lowly enrolled, the previous way of dealing with it would have been to address retrenchment at that location. However, there may be faculty that are impacted at both locations, so institutionally, you must figure out how you can meet that need while recognizing those two locations. He said that the revisions involve creating a model that can consider how time served and rank matter as they relate to how the retrenchment would take place.

Senator Dees thanked him and mentioned the importance of RCFAC weighing in on such decisions.

Senator Taylor said that in section F, a six-month increase in notice time was presented as a way to compensate for paragraphs where the time periods were removed from the previous policy. He then pointed out that under F.1.a., it went from 120 days to nine months, which would result in a five-month increase. He asked whether he was doing the math wrong and asked for what the intent was.

Associate Provost West clarified that the intent was to add 6 months to each of the categories.

Chair Kaplan said an amendment would be needed to change section F.1.a. to reflect that.

A motion was made and seconded to amend the policy (Fisch/Boyd-Swan). The amendment passed unanimously.

Senator Taylor asked why “by the faculty senate” is in the retrenchment policy but not in the workload policy.

Senator Deborah Smith responded that Faculty Senate’s role in this is already in the Faculty Senate’s charter and bylaws and in the TT CBA.

Senator Boyd-Swan wanted to know whether, given that the policy is now delineating that a retrenchable unit is a program across regional campuses as a whole, if you were to retrench that program, would each campus with faculty in that program then be consulted as well as the academic unit at the Kent campus.

Associate Provost West said that because the academic homes are on the Kent campus, they would be consulted.

Senator Bagheri asked for clarification about the regional campuses. He said that he thought the regional campuses were no longer meant to be retrenchable as a single unit, but he wondered that as far as programs go, could a program that was excelling at one campus, mediocre at a second, and failing at a third at one regional be ended simply in the interest of being fair.

Associate Provost West replied that retrenchment would no longer be considered only at a low enrolled location; if the revision is adopted in the case mentioned by Senator Bagheri, the administration would make the decision to retrench, which would include the program at all three campuses, and then the buckets classifying faculty would go into effect. Whoever had the least amount of service would be retrenched first.

Senator Bagheri wanted to know whether it could affect a successful campus’s program in the same way as it could affect one with lower enrollment.

Senator Boyd-Swan said that if a program had a presence on three regional campuses, as in Senator Bagheri’s example, and a junior faculty member who is located at the high-performing campus is the one that gets retrenched, you could transfer those faculty members from the low performing campus to the high performing campus to maintain the number of faculty there because it is still high performing. You would still engage in retrenchment, but the position would get backfilled by people from the low-performing campus’s program.

Associate Provost West agreed with Senator Boyd-Swan.

Senator Walton-Fisette asked about consultation. She said that she appreciated that Associate Provost West had said there would be consultation on the Kent Campus, but she pointed out that the language stated that consultation in the policy is listed as being done with the Provost, deans of the effective programs, academic units or campuses. She worried that “or” made the policy unclear.

Senator Deborah Smith said “or” is inclusive in policy unless it says otherwise—it’s read as and/or.

Chair Kaplan asked for a vote on the revisions to the policy.

The motion passed with a voice vote.

8.     Action Item: Change in Policy on University Tenure

Associate Provost West explained the changes.

Chair Kaplan asked for a motion and a second to approve the changes (Deborah Smith/Fisch).

He then invited comments or questions.

There were no comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

9.     Presentation on the Kent Core by Senator David Dees

Senator Dees presented a brief PowerPoint []. He thanked many people and shared the 6 key recommendations in the PowerPoint. He encouraged people to provide feedback through the link presented at the presentation. The link will also be sent out to all faculty.

Senator Cunningham had two comments: (1) she felt that “pressing issues” was too idealistic as a category (for example an AI course could not be easily and quickly moved in or out of this category), and (2) the state has not demanded that we have a dedicated AI course. They have only asked that AI be integrated into existing, approved general education courses whenever possible and applicable. She made a suggestion about adding a radio button to the CIM system for showing that a course addresses AI. She asked whether there will be time for revising the model after the two-week feedback period that is taking place over winter break.

Senator Dees said feedback will go back to the design team, and they would work with it before it came before EPC and Faculty Senate for a vote. He encouraged everyone to respond to the QR code from the presentation.

Chair Kaplan also encouraged people to give feedback through the link on the QR code.

Senator Boyd-Swan had four questions: (1) what is the problem with the current Kent Core; (2) how do we know that it is a problem; (3) how do we know that this is the solution that will address the problem; and (4) what is the additional cost that enacting this solution would add?

Senator Dees answered: (1) staying accredited with the Higher Learning Commission who were adamant that the Kent Core and its assessment strategy was problematic; (2) years of data about students seeing the program as irrelevant; (3) the new model would allow create a new academic advisory committee that would work at the ground level with units to develop real assessment strategies that would align with our outcomes; and (4) the budget committee did not believe that there would be any cost added.

Senator Vachon asked whether a course in the new core could be against AI.

Senator Dees replied that it could fit as a different perspective in the pressing issues area.

There were no further comments or questions.

10.   Old Business

There was no old business.

11.   EPC Action Items

1. UNDERGRADUATE POLICES COUNCIL () Revise Policy (Fall 2026) 

Director Joanna Liedel explained the changes.

A motion was made to approve the policy (Dauterich). 

Chair Kaplan then invited comments or questions.

Senator Deborah Smith mentioned that she was put off by the description that said the revisions to the policies being reviewed were minor. She said that many changes were substantive, and she felt as if without a note explaining the context of those changes, she was being gaslighted.

Chair Kaplan said he was sure there was no attempt to gaslight anyone.

Senator Deborah Smith replied that there were a lot of revisions, and she added that the revisions were not minor, and it should not say that in the proposal.

There were no further comments or questions.

The motion passed by a voice vote.

2. UNDERGRADUATE POLICES COUNCIL () Revise Policy (Fall 2026) 

Director Liedel explained the policy changes. 

A motion was made to approve the policy (Fisch). 

Chair Kaplan then invited comments or questions.

Senator Torres asked for confirmation about the numbers of courses required for the doctoral degree.

Director Liedel answered that 60 hours have to be at the 70 or 80 thousand level.

There were no other questions.

The motion passed unanimously.

3. UNDERGRADUATE POLICES COUNCIL () Revise Policy (Fall 2026) 

Director Liedel explained the policy 

 A motion was made to approve the policy (Earp). 

Chair Kaplan then invited comments or questions.

There were no questions or comments.

The motion passed unanimously.

4. School of Engineering ( ) Establish Degree Program (Fall 2026) 

Dean Bloebaum presented a PowerPoint explaining the need for the program.

A motion was made to approve the establishment of the program (Tippey). 

She then invited comments or questions.

Senator Dees asked whether there were enough faculty and staff to support what they have now.

Dean Bloebaum said they were well-prepared. There are 17 faculty relevant to the proposed program already here.

Senator Bagheri asked whether they needed to hire new faculty or not.

Dean Bloebaum replied that they will add more faculty if the college continues to grow, but there were no plans to do so at present.

Senator Boyd-Swan asked whether this would pull in students from other universities or just shift them from one major to another.

Dean Bloebaum said it would bring in new students.

Senator Mocioalca asked what the student projections were based on, and what would happen if there were less than five students in the first year.

Dean Bloebaum responded that it is the number one, in-demand program in the state and the country from industry. She pointed out the success of aerospace engineering, mechatronics, and cybersecurity engineering in the past. This is a more in-demand program, and they can reasonably estimate enrollment based on that. She anticipates plenty of students.

Senator Tippey said he serves in the Honors College and thanked her for her work. He then asked whether there could be an increase in Honors thesis writing based on the new program.

Senator Bloebaum said there was a new course being designed for research in that direction.

There were no further comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

12.   New Business

There was no new business.

13.   Additional Items

       There were no additional items.

14.     Announcements/ Statements for the Record

Chair Kaplan invited announcements or statements for the record from the floor.

There were none.

15.    Adjournment                                                  

Chair Kaplan adjourned the meeting at 6:21 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Edward Dauterich

Secretary, Faculty Senate