�Ը�������

FACULTY SENATE

Meeting Minutes

September 14, 2026

Senators Present:  Ann Abraham, Loretta Aller, Tina Bhargava, Casey Boyd-Swan, Matt Butler, Lauren Copeland, Jennifer Cunningham, Mark Dalman, Ed Dauterich, Omar De La Cruz Cabrera, David Dees, Julie Evey, Michele Ewing, Michael Fisch, Michelle Foster, Tianyuan Guan, Sean Kennedy, Terri Kent, Velvet Landingham, Aaron Maguire, Marianne Martens, Mahli Mechenbier, Ashley Nickels, Vic Perera, Linda Piccirillo-Smith, Helen Piontkivska, Kristenne Robison, Lydia Rose, Susan Roxburgh, Jim Seelye, Deborah Smith, Gregory Smith, Katie Strand, Jennifer Taber, Eric Taylor, Brett Tippey, Francisco Torres, Lauren Vachon, Laurie Wagner, Theresa Walton-Fisette, Christopher Was, Kyle Winkler

Senators Not Present: Vanessa Earp, David Kaplan, Athena Salaba

 Ex-Officio Members Present: President Todd Diacon; Executive Vice President and Provost Melody Tankersley; Amy Quillen for Senior Vice President Eboni Pringle; Senior Vice President Jeannie Reifsnyder; Vice Presidents: Sean Broghammer, Doug Delahanty, Donna Sansonetti for Amoaba Gooden, Leigh Greenfelder*, Doug Kubinski, James Raber, Charlene Reed, Randale Richmond, Stephen Ward; Deans: Sonia Alemagno, Brad Bielski*, Ken Burhanna, Kelly Cichy, Alicia Crowe*, Marcello Fantoni, Mark Hardy*, Sharon Wohl for Mark Mistur, Tracy Motter*, Deirdre Warren for Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Amy Reynolds, John Sankovic*, Jillian Sokso*, Deborah Spake       

*Interim 

Ex-Officio Members Not Present:   

*Interim 

Observers Present: Emeritus Professor Laux, Isabella Buell, Megan Smeznik

Observers Not Present: Shiza Nisar

Guests Present: Jake Ball, Brenda Burke, J.R. Campbell, Ken Ditlevson, Chris Dorsten, Pat Gallagher, Jennifer Hebebrand, Tom Janson, Michael Kavulic, Joanna Liedel, Jennifer Marcinkiewicz, Julie Mazzei, Amy Nuesch, Susan Perry, Elizabeth Piatt, Scott Sheridan, Therese Tillett, Jennifer Walton-Fisette, Kevin West

1.          Call to Order  

Chair Boyd-Swan 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 (Piccirillo-Smith/Nickels). 

The motion passed unanimously. 

A motion was made to amend the agenda to add a presentation from the CARES (Crisis Advocacy Resources Education Support) Center (Abraham/Piccirillo-Smith).

The motion passed unanimously.

 4.       Approval of the Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2026

            Chair Boyd-Swan asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the July 13, 2026, Faculty Senate meeting. A motion was made and seconded (Cunningham/Gregory Smith).                  

            The minutes were approved unanimously as written.

 5.      Chair’s Remarks

           Chair Boyd-Swan delivered the following remarks:

           “Welcome back faculty, staff, students, administrators – I hope you all had fun, productive, and relaxing summers. I appreciate you setting aside other demands on your time to be here and I am thankful for the opportunity to take up some of that time. A few things stood out to me as being necessary to share with you and say out loud.

                     First, I cannot thank the members of Senate Exec enough for their patience with me and willingness to roll with the punches. In addition to Ed, Ann, and Dave who were elected by Senate to serve in their respective roles, we have also appointed Tina Barghava and Athena Salaba to round out the team. I feel fortunate to have this group of people on Exec and I hope you feel the same.

                     Second, I want to thank Senators for being here as the voices, eyes, and ears of those they represent. I hope that you continue to be gracious in sharing their concerns and questions here at Senate; to aid in that, Exec has been working on several tools that will hopefully make the work of communicating back to your faculty easier.

                     Finally, you’ll notice that the program appraisal discussion isn’t on today’s agenda; it was removed after having been circulated and I know many of you had already seen it and had reached out to me with questions and concerns. While this item will not be presented as part of today’s agenda, it is clearly an important process, and I would like to encourage senators to think about the following questions:

• when thinking about evaluating our academic programs, what values or criteria would you want to prioritize - and for each one of those, can they be easily measured, or do they require our judgment as faculty?
• what is the goal of reviewing our existing programs, and how would we know when we've reached it?
• how might we guard against unintended consequences that could harm us as a community of higher education?

                     I don't have the answers to any of these questions - I'm not even convinced these are all the questions we need to consider. That's what faculty governance is for - not waiting to be handed the questions, but asking our own.

                     We are a deliberative body. We don't need an external prompt to have this conversation; we can have it right here, on our own initiative.  And we can take it further---back to our departments and colleagues - What do they think?  We don't need to wait to respond to something we're shown. We have agency. Let's use it.”

           She then offered an opportunity for comments or questions.

           Senator Deborah Smith asked why the appraisal process was pulled from a previously dispersed version of the agenda.

           Chair Boyd-Swan turned the question over to Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley.

           Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said there have been no decisions made yet, and no decisions will be made without faculty being actively involved in the process. She said it was pulled because there had not been enough discussion about the appraisal process in advance for it to be brought to the floor. President Diacon had agreed and asked for the item to be pulled from the agenda for the day.

           She added that it was meant to be on the agenda as a discussion point, not as a facetious attempt to consult.

           Senator Vachon asked whether the dates on the previous documents about appraisal were still accurate.

           Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said that the timeline is no longer a timeline and instructed the deans to pause until there is a chance for broader consultation.

           Senator Piccirillo-Smith said she was confused by the flowchart that had been sent out earlier. She said it was thought out well, but she did not see a spot for faculty input. She also wondered about the original proposed turnaround time.

           Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley turned the microphone over to Associate Provost Sheridan.

           Associate Provost Sheridan said it was an iterative process throughout the summer. They met with deans, chairs, and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. There were at least four versions of the flowchart. He added that the most current version does have faculty input; the document Senator Piccirillo-Smith saw must have been an older version of a working document.

           Senator Tippey asked for clarification of whether this removed item on the agenda was the same as program assessment, or whether it was related to SB1.

           Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley replied that it is assessment, but it is not related to SB1. She said they will revisit the documents to discuss what the right questions are for the next version of the documents. She emphasized that it would be holistic and not focused on just numbers of graduates.

           Senator Torres asked whether the attempt at program appraisal and possible closure would result in moving the faculty who were employed in the programs to other areas or firing them.

           Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said she was not looking to fire faculty, but there are programs that may no longer be viable. She said that as a faculty we need to look at where we can make room for programs the community needs rather than ones that are not viable. She said we need to add into our portfolio as well as cutting back, and the appraisal process should bring all of it together.

           She thanked Associate Provost Sheridan for his work and Faculty Senate for working together with her on the process.

6.       Provost’s Remarks

Executive Vice President and Provost Melody Tankersley delivered her remarks [].

She then invited comments or questions.

Senator Deborah Smith said she wondered about how broadly possible exceptions, substitutions, and alternative ways of achieving learning outcomes for the Kent Core were being construed in her remarks. She gave the following example: the Department of Philosophy could argue that since philosophy is the heart of all the social sciences and physical sciences, merely obtaining a philosophy degree achieves all of the learning outcomes of the Kent Core, and so students could be exempt from those requirements.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley responded that it would be for degree programs in their totality to ask questions about substitutions when they have too many courses to meet the 120-hour requirement or when they are having problems with accreditation. 

Senator Deborah Smith said that if departments were following “best practices,” they would all think that they could not meet the 120-credit hour requirement. Departments all made hard choices about their majors to fit their degrees into those 120 hours. She worried about the slipperiness of best practice ideas and that the process could run afoul of state mandates.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley agreed.

Senator Dees said he was considering a motion to revisit the Kent Core distribution and allowing the state-required civics class to count toward itself and toward the humanities requirements. He expressed concern, however, that one state senator wants to mandate who would be allowed to teach the civics courses at each university. This could mean that we would have to go back to redesigning the core anyway. He said going back to one of the original Kent Core proposals that would allow the civics course to count in any category approved at the state level would free up the three hours that programs want. 

He then motioned to let civics count in other bucket categories. Senator Abraham seconded.

Senator Deborah Smith said she would oppose the motion. She argued that the current status quo does not require that three of the 9 credits in art and humanities must be taken up by a particular class mandated by the state.  She added that this would de facto limit students to only 6 credits in arts and humanities plus the civics course. She said it would be identical to a model we voted against and would hurt arts and humanities.

Senator Vachon said that she could see both sides of the question. She moved to postpone the matter to the next meeting. Senator Deborah Smith seconded. 

Senator Fisch said the Provost is going to do what she wants and added that he felt like Faculty Senate had made their view on the distribution of the Kent Core clear in their previous vote. He said he felt blindsided.

Senator Torres supported Senator Fisch’s comments and added that he was disheartened that deans had previously encouraged their faculty to vote in favor of their programs when it came to Kent Core distribution; he said that senators are not there to represent deans but to represent their colleges or their constituency. He suggested that the university needs a process to ensure that administration does not tell faculty what motions to make or how to vote at Faculty Senate.

He continued with a second concern. He asked how one third of the vote on the Kent Core distribution could somehow beat the other two thirds of the voters in a supposedly democratic system. He wanted to know which voices really mattered in the conversation. 

Senator Bhargava asked about the consequences of postponing the vote until the next meeting.

Senator Dauterich explained that if the motion to postpone was dropped, Faculty Senate could move to commit the matter to committee and explained how that could work. 

Senator Vachon agreed to drop the motion to postpone to the next meeting.

Senator Dauterich motioned to commit the design of the process for determining exceptions to URCC and GEOC and bring it back to the full senate. Senator Deborah Smith seconded the motion.

Senator Nickels asked for clarification of which motion was being voted on.

Senator Dauterich explained that it was the motion to commit the matter to the URCC and GEOC.

Senator Wagner said that the Faculty Senate vote was no longer being respected. She argued that this motion would mean that we are instead sending the Kent Core distribution back to a committee so we can revote on something that we already passed at a previous meeting.

Senator Dauterich responded that the URCC is a Faculty Senate committee and that we would be sending it back to ourselves to see whether exceptions needed to be made for accreditation or other purposes.

Senator Deborah Smith offered support for the process’s creation at that level.

Senator Cunningham said she has worked on all the committees that worked on the Kent Core and supported the motion. She thought it was a good way forward.

Senator Dees observed that his group would not have the process ready before the October meeting.

Senator Torres supported the motion to commit.

Senator Roxburgh asked whether we were saying in principle that we were okay with the exception strategy. She expressed concern that we should not simply retrace our previous steps.

Senator Rose agreed with the motion but also said we need to make sure we take things seriously and that the concerns of the third who voted for different options needed to be fully considered.

Senator Fisch moved the previous question. Senator Deborah Smith seconded. 

The motion passed unanimously.

Faculty Senate then voted on the motion to refer to committee.

The motion passed.

There were no further comments or questions.

Senator Maguire read the following statement:

“Communication is the foundation of human activity. And yet, we live in an era of ubiquitous computing in which communication is increasingly mediated by digital technologies, screens, and devices. As face-to-face communication is supplanted by asynchronous communication, it is perhaps not surprising that employers consistently report a lack of soft skills as a challenge when hiring young people.

Today’s students need to develop communication skills like listening, giving and receiving constructive feedback, presenting information, and persuading audiences that will help them succeed in both personal and professional settings. These are precisely the types of skills that students develop in COMM15000: Introduction to Human Communication.

The bottom line is that soft skills are critical and valued in a technologized society and world of work. Because COMM15000 develops soft skills that prepare graduates to thrive in an increasingly AI-dominated society, COMM15000 warrants inclusion in the revised Kent Core.”

           He then moved to include COMM15000 as an alternative to Research Writing in the Kent Core.

           Senator Tippey seconded the motion.

Senator Deborah Smith said that voting on this would be going against the will of the Faculty Senate and that she understood the provost’s condition for accepting Option A to be that programs could argue that the course was relevant to their programs and take it through the committee.

Senator Dees said he appreciated the motion and that the communication course is still in the core, so it could be possible. He added that 90 majors require it, and he stated that we are not getting rid of Communications 15000.

Senator Maguire argued that everyone should take the class. He said Senator Deborah Smith’s argument could also be made regarding Research Writing. 

Senator Mechenbier said that English and Communications respect one another, and she added that this had already been voted on when Faculty Senate voted not to require it in the core.

Senator Abraham gave her time to Senator Maguire

Senator Maguire spoke again and said he felt like he had been appeased when the option was offered in the past. He stressed the importance of everyone taking communication again.

Senator Kent said we have a process. It was established and we voted. Not everyone liked the outcome, but we voted. She said that we needed to move forward.

The motion failed by voice vote.

7.     Enrollment Report (presented by Vice President Sean Broghammer)

Vice President Broghammer presented his report [].

He then offered an opportunity for comments or questions.

Senator Vachon asked whether there was any data on enrollments declining due to SB1.

Vice President Broghammer responded that he did not have quantitative data to say how much the bill had affected enrollment, but he added that in his work with Senior Vice President Pringle, they had marketed inclusive communities to students regardless of their background.

Senator Dees asked Senior Vice President Reifsnyder what the offset was of losing tuition dollars now versus the payback of the SSI graduation rate later.

Senior Vice President Reifsnyder responded that the pot of money is a fixed pot and that it helps us maintain our position among other universities, but that their data spreadsheet is comparing �Ը������� with other institutions and degree credits, which means it is difficult to translate into an exact dollar amount.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith asked whether, when looking at retention data, there was a timeline or plan in place to deal with the reduction in retention rates on the Kent Campus.

Vice President Broghammer replied that the first indicator is fall to spring; they look at persistence rates, how many students started in fall, and how many persisted to the spring. This year, at the census in January, they saw that they were slightly down from the previous year, so they took that into account when they gathered in February to adjust the anticipated undergraduate numbers. He added that they are engaging with initiatives and strategies to increase retention, including everything from evaluating math and how it impacts other majors to looking at pathway programs in partnership with the University College.

Senator De La Cruz Cabrera asked whether there was any data about the incoming students that were tracked early but then did not enroll. He wanted to know where they went or whether they skipped college altogether. 

Vice President Broghammer responded that historically, most of them chose not to attend college. He said that he would have more information in about a month.

Senator Torres asked Vice President Broghammer whether he had seen a strong correlation between offering fewer graduate assistantships and the sharp decline in international graduate enrollment beyond the difficulties with student visas being obtained.

Vice President Broghammer deferred the question to Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley, who invited Vice President Fantoni to address it.

Vice President Fantoni responded that assistantships were a factor, but not the most important one. He said that in general, international students chose other countries. In addition, the largest cohort of graduate students had been coming from India, and this year, visa denials for students from India were around 66%.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley added that domestically there was a 40% decline in graduate study and caps on the amount of money graduate students could receive in loans. She acknowledged that not having assistantships was a problem, but the funding was not available for tuition and stipends.

Senator Deborah Smith pointed out that the tuition money is paid to the university itself; it appears on the revenue side, but it zeroes out on the expense side of the ledger.

Senior Vice President Reifsnyder said that the tuition component does zero out, but any stipend does not.

Senator Dees thanked Associate Vice President Brenda Burke for her work helping international students receive financial aid. He said that she had saved several students with her aid.

President Diacon asked Vice President Broghammer to explain the changes she had made and how late in the process the changes occurred.

Vice President Broghammer said that graduate students who used to be enrolled part-time would receive full-time funding, meaning full access to loans. This year, that changed in August. Associate Vice President Burke’s team was left with pulling back and holding distribution of that aid. He added that we could have gone forward and awarded full-time aid, but the problem is that it would have to have been corrected in the spring, which would leave students worse off. Associate Vice President Burke and her team then began to manually review every student because their systems could not deal with the changes implemented at the federal level. They are still dealing with hundreds of files.

Senator Nickels asked what the financial implication for the reduction in the number of students we brought in this term was.

Senior Vice President Reifsnyder said we have cohort pricing, so each cohort has different rates. She said that they were currently working to get the data downloaded so they could make accurate calculations and projections.

There were no further comments or questions.

8.     Old Business

                        a. QR Code Voting

           Chair Boyd-Swan explained how the voting system worked and demonstrated how it could be implemented during a meeting.

                         b. Faculty Ethics Committee Vote

           Chair Boyd-Swan held the election for the committee. The candidates were Senator Roxburgh and Senator Earp. Two seats were available.

                        Faculty Senate voted using the QR code system.

                         Both senators won a spot on the committee.

9.     New Business

a. Recording Rules in Code of Student Conduct

Chair Boyd-Swan explained the new rules [].

She also explained that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee had approved them on behalf of the Faculty Senate over the summer, so they could be included in the Code of Student Conduct before the semester began; however, they were now being brought to the full Faculty Senate for discussion.

She offered an opportunity for comments or questions.

Senator Deborah Smith moved to approve the changes. Senator Fisch seconded.

Senator Tippey asked why SAS was not capitalized in the policy.

Vice President Kubinski explained that it was not capitalized because when an item is submitted as legislation, capitalization is only used in specific odd cases. 

Senator Wagner asked whether a student recording for their own use but then using it in some other way would be covered by the policy.

Vice President Kubinski replied that any recorded information was prevented from being shared without faculty permission to do so.

Senator Greg Smith asked for clarification about the one-party recording law from the state and asked how the policy works with state law.

Vice President Kubinski said that is a criminal statute, but �Ը������� could pass a policy like this that applies to the campus; he compared it to the no smoking policy that prevent smoking on campus even when it is legal in other places.

Senator De La Cruz Cabrera asked what the penalties would be for students who ignored the policy.

Vice President Kubinski said the matter would go to Student Conduct

Senator Tippey asked whether a syllabus statement was enough to give or deny the instructor’s permission.

Vice President Kubinski said that it was.

There were no further comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously.

10.   Additional Items      

        1. CARES Presentation (presented by Assistant Dean Ken Ditlevson)

           Assistant Dean Ditlevson would have presented a PowerPoint [] and a handout [].

           Unfortunately, he was unable to present due to the length of the meeting. He will present at the next meeting.

           2. Senator Kent read the following statement:

           “Colleagues, I’ve been asked to bring forward a concern involving the Ph.D. in Music Education in the School of Music.

           I want to be clear from the outset: I’m raising a question of process and shared governance. I’m not questioning the need to consider enrollment or financial realities, nor am I challenging the dean’s authority to make final decisions on individual graduate admissions.

                         Here’s what happened.

           Three students applied for Fall 2026 admission to the Ph.D. in Music Education. The faculty reviewed those applicants through the normal admissions process and recommended admission. Those recommendations were sent to the College in the spring. A fourth student has since applied and has also been recommended for admissions.

                         On August 13, the faculty were informed that no students would be admitted for Fall 2026.

           The reason given was not that the applicants were unqualified. The faculty were told and I quote:

           ‘The current application pool and potential resulting yield is not substantial enough to admit a cohort for Fall 2026 admission, as course enrollments would be below the current metric for courses to run. Therefore, we will not be admitting any candidates for fall ’26.’

The communication goes on to say that the Ph.D. program will be part of the University’s program appraisal process and that faculty will have an opportunity during the fall to ‘engage and advocate for future admission to the program.’

                        That brings me to the central question:

           Where does the authority to make “Individual- Admissions- Decisions” end, and where does a “Program-Level- Decision” to suspend admissions begin?

           I spent some time looking at our policies because I wanted to understand that distinction.

           �Ը�������’s own Curriculum Services guidance specifically provides a process for temporarily suspending admissions to an academic program. In fact, one of the reasons it identifies for suspension is limited resources.

           But the same guidance also says that a proposal to temporarily suspend admissions must go through the College’s standard curriculum review and approval process.

           The Faculty Handbook states that faculty have a primary role in curriculum development and responsibility for the delivery and maintenance of instructional programs.

           And under the University’s new curricular approval policy, effective March 31, curricular changes are to come before the appropriate faculty advisory and curriculum committees and Faculty Senate so those bodies can provide advice, feedback, and recommendations.

           I recognize that our role is advisory and that ultimate authority rests with the Board of Trustees. But an advisory role only has meaning if the process that allows us to provide that advice is used.

                         And there is another reason that process is important in this particular case.

           The Music Education faculty strongly maintain that this is a highly successful and financially sustainable doctoral program. They believe the program’s history, outcomes, enrollment impact, and financial data, support continued admission.

           I am not in a position today to independently evaluate that claim—and I don’t think Faculty Senate needs to do so today.

                         That is precisely why the established process matters.

                         So, my question is:

           If faculty recommend qualified applicants, but the College decides that no one will be admitted because the cohort is too small, has the College, in effect, temporarily suspended admissions to the program?

           And if so, shouldn’t that decision go through the established curricular process for suspending admissions?

                         This distinction matters beyond Music Education.

           Suppose a program needs six students to meet an enrollment metric, but only five qualified students apply and none are admitted. The next year there may be four applicants, then three.

           Eventually, declining enrollment could itself become evidence that the program is unsustainable.

           A program could effectively disappear without admissions ever being formally suspended and without the faculty-governance process ever occurring.

                         That is why the procedural distinction matters.

           I am not asking Senate today to determine whether these four applicants should be admitted. Nor am I asking Senate to determine what constitutes a financially sustainable doctoral cohort.

                         I am asking for clarification on two questions:

    First, does declining every faculty-recommended applicant because of cohort size 

    constitute, in substance, a temporary suspension of admissions?

Second, has a formal proposal to suspend admissions to the Ph.D. in Music Education for Fall 2026 been initiated through CIM and the appropriate curricular bodies?

                         If it has, then that process should proceed.

           If it has not, then I believe we need to understand why a program-level decision that no students will be admitted was made outside that process.

                         Financial considerations matter. Enrollment matters. Program sustainability matters.

                         But process matters, too.                   

           Especially as programs across the University undergo appraisal, we need clarity about whether an administration can effectively stop admissions through individual admissions decisions—or whether a decision to stop admitting students must occur transparently through the curricular processes this University has established.

                         That is the clarification I am asking Faculty Senate to pursue.

                         Thank you.”

There was then time for questions or comments.

Senator Deborah Smith said that as a former Chair of Senate, this looked like a decision to temporarily suspend enrollment that should have gone through the curricular process that involves EPC and the Faculty Senate.

Emeritus Professor Laux agreed that the system was bypassed, and it should not have occurred.

Senator Dauterich added that as Chair of the EPC, he agreed that any curricular change like this needs to go through the process before it takes place. He said that there can be disputes between administrators and faculty for how something should be handled, but EPC has a process for resolving disputes. EPC votes on one side or the other; if either party wants to elevate the matter to Faculty Senate, it automatically becomes an action item on the Faculty Senate Agenda.

Senator Kent asked how she should invite her colleagues in the School of Music to proceed.

Senator Dauterich deferred the question to Associate Vice President Tillett.

Associate Vice President Tillet said that for suspension, Curriculum Services requires a faculty vote and submission through CIM before it goes through the curriculum process, and then Curriculum Services usually contacts admissions to close applications. She agreed that this case sounded like a case where the faculty did not want to suspend admission.

Senator Deborah Smith advised Senator Kent to contact the grievance officer of KSUFA. She said that the Faculty Senate charter and bylaws are incorporated in the tenure-track CBA and are enforceable through the grievance process.

Senator Torres asked what ability the Faculty Senate has to correct harm. He asked what Faculty Senate could do to prevent someone from ignoring the process. He wanted to know whether there was any ability for Faculty Senate to ensure that policies are enforced.

Emeritus Professor Laux responded that the Chair of Faculty Senate has access to the provost’s office but there must be awareness on the part of the Executive Committee to know there is a reason to pursue such matters. He said that this shows the importance of shared governance and communication. He said that faculty with issues like this need to reach out to the leadership of Faculty Senate and, in some cases, of KSUFA if the contract is involved. He stressed that faculty needed to be proactive.

Chair Boyd-Swan replied that she was made aware of the situation and had informed the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, who did have a discussion with members of the provost’s office, but it was not resolved to the satisfaction of the faculty.

Emeritus Professor Laux said that in this case, it would be appropriate to take the subsequent action that Senator Deborah Smith had mentioned.

Senator Wagner said she had a program where students were probably charged application fees for programs that they were not actually going to be admitted to. She said that this was harmful to these prospective students as well, and perhaps someone should be concerned about their being reimbursed by a program that had no intention of admitting them.

Senator Tippey offered support and reminded those present that any senator could make a motion and that Faculty Senate could then vote on a resolution or recommendation regarding the issue.

Senator Nickels asked for clarification about the dispute process at EPC and how it worked.

Senator Dauterich explained the dispute process and how it had worked out at past EPC meetings.

There were no other questions or comments.

11.     Announcements/ Statements for the Record

Senator Tippey thanked staff and students who worked through schedule changes that occurred in July and suggested that the staff and advisors responsible for making that happen deserved a lunch for their hard work.

Senator Deborah Smith said that the E&G (Educational and General) expenditures, university-wide (Kent Campus, Regional Campus, College of Podiatric Medicine), came in at $12,765,795. 82 under budget for FY 26. She added that this was the only year in all the years she had requested records that showed the university was significantly under budget. She said that this was good news that she did not want to see suppressed.

12.    Adjournment                                                   

Chair Boyd-Swan adjourned the meeting at 5:43 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Edward Dauterich

Secretary, Faculty Senate