�Ը�������

FACULTY SENATE

Meeting Minutes April 13, 2026

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

Senators Not Present: Matt Butler, Mark Dalman, Michelle Foster, Janice Kroeger

Ex-Officio Members Present: President Todd Diacon; Executive Vice President and Provost Melody Tankersley; Senior Vice President Eboni Pringle; Senior Vice President Jeannie Reifsnyder*; Vice Presidents: Sean Broghammer, Lori Burchard for Doug Delahanty, Amoaba Gooden, Nichole DeCaprio for Doug Kubinski, James Raber*, Charlene Reed, Peggy Shadduck, Stephen Ward; Deans: Sonia Alemagno, Christina Bloebaum, Ken Burhanna, Alicia Crowe*, Marcello Fantoni*, Versie Johnson-Mallard, Sharon Wohl for Mark Mistur, Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Diane Petrella, Elizabeth Piatt*, Michael Beam for Amy Reynolds, Deborah Spake      

*Interim 

Ex-Officio Members Not Present: Vice Presidents: Randale Richmond, Valoree Vargo; Deans: Allan Boike,Scott Sheridan*

Observers Present: Emeritus Professor Janson

Observers Not Present: Ms. Shiza Nisar (GSS), Ms. Hanna Sietz (USG)

Guests Present: Asli Arikan, Jake Ball, Brenda Burke, Rachele Burkholder, Chris Dorsten, Jennifer Hebebrand, Tracy Laux, Joanna Liedel, Jennifer Marcinkiewicz, Jennifer McDonough, Amy Nuesch, Jennifer Newberger, Christa Ord, Susan Perry, Amy Quillen, Thomas Sanson, Therese Tillett, Deirdre Warren, 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 (Nickels/Bagheri).

The agenda passed unanimously. 

4.       Approval of the Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2026

Chair Kaplan asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2026, Faculty Senate meeting. 

A motion was made and seconded (Abraham/Deborah Smith).               

The minutes were approved unanimously with the correction of a typo.

5.      Chair’s Remarks

Chair Kaplan warned people that the camera can see them when we have virtual meetings. He then turned over his time to the provost.

6.       Provost’s Remarks

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley yielded her time for President Diacon to speak later in the meeting.

7.    Faculty Senate Executive Committee Elections (ongoing throughout the meeting)

Candidates for Chair: Casey Boyd-Swan, Dave Kaplan

Senator Casey Boyd-Swan won the election.

Candidates for Vice Chair: Ann Abraham

There was a motion and a second to elect the Vice Chair by acclamation (Deborah Smith/Salaba).

Senator Ann Abraham won the election.

 Candidates for Secretary: Ed Dauterich

There was a motion and a second to elect the Secretary by acclamation (Fisch/Nickels). 

Senator Ed Dauterich won the election.

Candidates for At-Large: Tina Bhargava, David Dees, Aaron Maguire, Lauren Vachon

Senator David Dees won the election.

8.    EPC (Educational Policies Council) Action Items 

Secretary Dauterich (as Chair of the EPC) briefly explained all the items below. Others listed after each of the items below were there to answer questions in more detail if necessary.

COLLEGE OF APPLIED AND TECHNICAL STUDIES (Dean Peggy Shadduck/Assistant Professor Tim Long)

1. Applied Organizational Leadership—A.B.A.S (Establish 90-credit bachelor’s degree/fall 2026)

• The proposed degree was approved for development in the spring of 2025.
• The fully developed proposed degree went to EPC after consultation with multiple colleges and with several adjustments based on that consultation.
• EPC approved the proposed degree in January of 2026.
• Faculty Senate did not approve the proposed degree in February of 2026.
• CATS was asked to consult further, specifically with Business Management.
• Changes were made at the suggestion of the Dean Spake of ACCBE, approved by CATS consultation bodies, supported by CCI, but still not supported by Business Management.
• Additional suggestions for change were made by CATS, but the proposed degree was still not supported by Business Management in ACCBE.
• Therefore, the dispute resolution process was used in EPC in March.  After hearing both perspectives, EPC voted in 11-7 in favor of degree approval.
• Dean Spake from ACCBE is supportive of the degree proposal and has expressed that thorough consultation with her college has been done.

A motion was made to approve the establishment of the degree (Bagheri).

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions.

Senator Boyd-Swan said that she had reached out to the Department of Management to get additional information from them. She found that they had reviewed the revised A.B.A.S. applied

leadership studies proposal and remained unable to support it for the following reasons: (1) the course content has not changed; the syllabi and topics listed are substantively identical to

Management’s existing offerings; (2) faculty qualifications remain a compliance concern; (3) the program’s SIP (School Improvement Plan) and occupational alignment remain inconsistent;

and (4) considering that the university is under budgetary constraints, it does not make sense that the courses offered in the new program would be duplicates of those already being offered

within the Department of Management. Senator Bagheri mentioned that the degree is important to the regional campuses, and there is a requirement by law to have a course like this approved. He said it will not require extra workforce to provide instruction, and he added that CATS faculty are in favor of the approach. He also said that the course could benefit enrollment at regional campuses and that it was not unprecedented for a degree to be offered by a department and CATS simultaneously.

Senator Rose also spoke in favor of the program. She said it was an applied program, and it was for a different type of student than one who would be in marketing. She added that although the

course descriptions may seem similar, they are taught differently. She said that the degree was for people in the workforce who do not yet have a degree and have hit a barrier to moving

forward. She emphasized that it was an applied degree rather than a B.A. or a B.S., so it would be taught by instructors with hands-on experience to students seeking that kind of education at

regional campuses. She concluded by saying that the degree opens up doors for many workers and that by voting against it, those doors would be closed.

Senator Deborah Smith asked whether Dean Spake was aware of the Department of Management’s concerns when she provided support for the new degree.

Dean Spake replied that at first she was not comfortable due to concerns over accreditation, but then after working with Vice President Shadduck, they resolved those concerns.

Senator Deborah Smith asked whether she had heard all the specific concerns from the Department of Management before providing her support.

Dean Spake replied that it had been an iterative process, but she only became aware of Management’s full concerns after the first EPC vote.

Senator Walton-Fisette asked Secretary Dauterich (as Chair of EPC) whether there had been other concerns raised at EPC the second time the degree came through, given that the vote was

less in favor of the degree than it had been the first time.

Secretary Dauterich replied that there had not been much controversy over it at the first EPC meeting because faculty from Management had been unavailable to participate in the

discussion; however, the second time the vote came before the EPC, faculty from the department were there to express their concerns, which may have led to less support.

Senator Cunningham said it is true that there is a legal requirement for the 90-hour degrees, but she added that we have another one in the pipeline, so there was not an urgent need to push this

degree through immediately.

Senator Boyd-Swan said that Management did offer a counterproposal as middle ground, but she understood that it had been rejected.

Senator Fisch asked whether the process was at an endpoint, or whether the debate would just keep bouncing around.

Associate Dean Emens responded that the faculty who developed this program had doctoral degrees in organizational leadership and quality systems and master’s degrees in public

administration, strategic leadership, and human relations. She added that those contributing courses to the program came from several colleges outside of CATS and that those faculty have a

variety of qualified backgrounds relevant to organizational leadership (communications, psychology, information technology, and business management). She added that there had been

questions about why they did not make it a 2+1 degree, but they decided that that approach could not achieve the full Kent Core and 39 hours of upper-division coursework that this degree

would provide. She continued, saying that more universities are passing similar degrees and that Louisiana State University recently passed one that mirrors what CATS is attempting to do. LSU is also offering this at their regionals, rather than at their flagship campus.

There were no further comments or questions.

A motion and a second was made for a roll call vote (Abraham/Piontkivska).

The votes were as follows:

Yea: Abraham, Aller, Antenucci, Bagheri, Dauterich, De La Cruz Cabrera, Dees, Evey, Ewing, Guan,

Kennedy, Maguire, Mangrum, McMahon, Mechenbier, Perera, Piontkivska, Rose, Seelye, Gregory Smith, Taylor

Nay: Boyd-Swan, Cunningham, Earp, Fisch, Kent, Landingham, Roxburgh, Deborah Smith, Taber,

Tippey, Wagner, Walton-Fisette, Was, Winkler

Abstained: Bhargava, Kaplan, Meshkani, Mocioalca, Nickels, Piccirillo-Smith, Salaba, Torres, Vachon

Motion passed 21-14-9

GRADUATE POLICIES COUNCIL (Erica Eckert and Melissa Zullo)

2. Leave of Absence for Graduate Students (Revise policy)

UPDATED FORMAT: In keeping with all other revised policies, update format of catalog policy to include reasoning, FAQs, related information, etc.  Updated name of Graduate College to University College as passed by Faculty Senate on February 9, 2026.

CHANGED LANGUAGE FOR POLICY ELIGIBILITY vs. THOSE NOT ELIGIBLE: Does not spell out who will be denied but rather focuses on who is eligible to request the leave.  Flipped the language so the eligibility criteria were clearer.  In addition, the criteria that the student must be in good academic standing was removed.

SPECIFICATION OF SERVICES FOR AN INACTIVE STUDENT: Removed Health Services from the list of services an inactive student cannot access.  This was recently changed at the university and even in an inactive status, a student can still seek out assistance from the Health Center.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST: Established a timely response window to leave request to be 10 working days from the time the request is submitted.

TIME-TO-DEGREE CALCULATION: Maintained the policy provision that the time spent away during leave of absence did not factor into time limits for degrees except for the Doctor of Podiatric Medicine but ADDED that some accreditation-driven programs may also be exempt.

A motion was made to approve the revision of the policy (Linda Piccirillo-Smith).

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions.

Senator Wagner said that she wanted to restate her issue with the policy from the first time it was presented. She said that it bypasses the faculty and the program approval for the leave of

absence. She added that the policy still says that when an academic unit grants the leave, the unit will be willing to re-enroll the student into the program; she said that the plan, including the

conditions, should be put into writing, and it should be clearly understood by all parties prior to the start of the leave, which would include the chair and the student, but not the faculty of the

program.

Senator Salaba echoed Senator Wagner’s concerns and suggested that at the minimum, the student’s faculty academic advisor should be informed because they are the ones planning the

program for graduate students.

Senator Roxburgh moved that the policy be amended so that it included notice to the advisor or the graduate coordinator or both.

Associate Dean Zullo responded that the committee decided not to include the advisor in the policy decision because there are occasions when a student has a private, personal reason for not

informing their advisor. Such a student, while needing to work with that advisor, might not need to be informed of personal circumstances. She added that the policy does say that the student should work with their advisor to formulate a plan to return.

Senator Fisch asked what the exact wording of the amendment was.

Senator Smith said that she saw language in the policy about working plans for returning, but she did not see any mention of any role for the advisor or graduate coordinator as one of the parties

involved. She said this was a concern for her. She seconded Senator Roxburgh’s amendment.

Senator Roxburgh mentioned that the graduate coordinator should be notified because of the budget implications that are involved with funded students.

Senator Salaba said she needed more information about confidentiality. She wanted to know why a student could go to the director of the program rather than their advisor.

Senator Tippey asked for clarification as to whether the advisor was a faculty or staff advisor.

Senator Wagner added that a simple notification to the graduate coordinator or faculty advisor would be a helpful step.

Senator Torres proposed the following wording for the amendment: “When an academic unit grants a leave of absence, in consultation with their faculty advisor and program coordinator,

that unit will be willing to re-enroll the student into their program. A plan for return, including any conditions that must be met, should be put in writing and clearly understood by all parties

prior to the start of the leave. If an extension of the leave of absence is requested, a revision to the plan for return is required and understood by all parties.”

Senator Deborah Smith wanted to know where in the policy that wording would be included.

Senator Torres said it would be included in the fifth bullet point of the procedure.

There were no further comments or questions.

The amendment passed unanimously.

There was no further discussion.

The revision of the policy passed unanimously.

3. Undergraduate Students Enrolling in Graduate Courses (Revise Policy)

UPDATE FORMAT: In keeping with all other revised policies, update format of catalog policy to include reasoning, FAQs, related information, etc.

REMOVE RESTRICTION THAT COURSES CANNOT LATER BE CONSIDERED TOWARDS A MASTER’S DEGREE: The previous policy restricted courses from later being used towards a graduate degree. However, allowing students to take graduate courses as a way to explore advanced topics and then once they determine they enjoy the content and would like to pursue a graduate degree and not allowing them to use the course(s) seemed punitive and antithetical to the purpose of the policy. It was forcing them to make a future decision without knowing all of the facts. It also put graduate programs at a disadvantage by using the policy as a possible recruitment tool to only deny the student from using the course(s) that may be required for the degree.

LOWER GPA FROM 3.300 TO 3.000: This decision was to bring the threshold in line with the Combined Bachelor/Master’s degree policy which required fewer hours to apply, and a lower GPA.

LOWER MAX CREDIT HOURS FROM 12 TO 9: This decision was to bring the threshold in line with the Combined Bachelor/Master’s degree policy which only allows for 9 credit hours of graduate coursework to double count. The Combined Bachelor/Master’s policy was changed from 12 credit hours to 9 credit hours in 2023 based on the Ohio Department of Higher Education directive by the Higher Learning Commission that, at most, 9 credit hours can be doubled counted in a combined bachelor's/master's degree program. These two policies should be aligned in their credit hours for consistency and to meet HLC requirements.

A motion was made to approve the revision of the policy (Torres).

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions.

There were no comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously.

UNDERGRADUATE POLICIES COUNCIL (Joanna Liedel/Dirk Remley)

4. Academic Dismissal—Undergraduate (Revise Policy)

1. Continue to dismiss students earning a 0.500 or below in their first term of enrollment at �Ը�������.

2. Clarify the effect of summer on dismissal.  Summer is considered a term and not a semester, therefore dismissal is not evaluated in the summer.  In addition, how a student does in the summer, whether it be to raise their GPA above a 2.000, or to drop below the good standing threshold, it is not used in determining dismissal in the fall. 

3. Remove first semester dismissal for full-time students with 9+ credit hours of failing grades and part-time students with 6+ credit hours of failing grades. In reviewing the data, the number of students who fell into this category that did not also fall into the 0.500 GPA criteria was relatively small compared to the other instances.  There were examples of students having decent grades in all of their other classes but struggling in 2 classes that equaled 9 hours (typically a math and science course) and were dismissed.  While they can appeal and often had strong cases to be made, the committee felt this seemed too harsh and was not a contributing factor to loan default and bad debt.

4. Remove language about the appeal and reinstatement process within the policy. As part of the review, it was felt that it would be better for clarity for the student to have each of these areas as stand-alone policies that were linked rather than have them all together in one.  This would improve readability but also allow for FAQs and procedures that are unique to each policy and allow for clarity in each area.

A motion was made to approve the revision of the policy (Torres).

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions.

There were no comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously.

5. Academic Dismissal Appeal—Undergraduate (Establish Policy)

The committee is recommending that dismissal appeals be reviewed by a new Dismissal Appeals Review Committee that is led by the Provost's Office using a standard rubric to allow for consistency across the university.

This university-wide committee will consist of faculty and advising leadership from a variety of colleges and campuses on a rotating basis who will be responsible for reviewing appeals and making recommendations using a shared rubric and based on the materials submitted by the student.

The UPC subcommittee recommends the creation of an online form to allow students to submit all materials at one time by the due date.

Finally, the UPC subcommittee recommends that the requirements for appeal be simplified in the policy, focusing exclusively on what happened that led to the dismissal and the plan for improvement moving forward. Other supporting materials can be submitted by a student if they are relevant to the appeal but will be removed from the catalog since they do not apply to all students. These supporting materials will be listed on the appeals form. The UPC subcommittee recommends using the appeals form to provide clarification, detailed information and examples.

A motion was made to establish the policy (Cunningham).

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions.

Senator Tippey asked whether the numbers and names of who is on the committee were

included in the policy.

Director Liedel said they did recommend it, but it will be an equal number of faculty and administrators working with academic dismissal.

Senator Tippey asked whether it was possible that a student might have their case reviewed without a representative from their college on the panel.

Director Liedel said a three-person review panel selected from the larger committee would look into it, but that it could go to a larger review panel if they could not come to a decision.

Senator Deborah Smith said that typically, faculty for such committees are recommended by the COC (Committee on Committees), and she wanted that to be included in the policy. She moved

to add that the faculty members of the committee will be appointed by the COC.

Senator Bhargava seconded the motion.

The amendment passed.

There were no further comments or questions.

The original motion passed unanimously.

6. Posthumous Degrees (Revise policy)

The initial contact, and the office responsible for overseeing the process, is being moved from the Office of the Provost to the Office of the President.

The updated language will be more inclusive of those requesting recognition from not only parents, but also spouses, domestic partners, and children.

A motion was made to approve the revision of the policy (Torres).

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions.

There were no comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously.

GRADUATE DEAN’S ADVISORY COUNCIL (Melissa Zullo)

7. Transfer of Graduate Credit (Revise policy)

The revision would allow for graduate course transfer work for courses that were used towards a previous degree at another institution but limited to graduate certificates and other non-degree programs.

A motion was made to approve the revision of the policy (Dees).

There was then an opportunity for comments or questions.

Senator Deborah Smith said that there was no specific language in the policy saying it was limited to graduate certificates and non-degree programs.

Senator Wagner said the language was in the third line of the policy.

Senator Deborah Smith replied that the language did not specifically state that the transfer was limited to graduate certificates and non-degree programs.

Senator Salaba tried to clarify the ways in which the policy expressed limits.

Senator Deborah Smith said that the language was in the rationale for the policy but not in the policy itself.

There was a motion and a second to send the policy back to committee (Fisch/Deborah Smith).

Associate Dean Zullo asked for clarification about where the confusion was.

Senator Deborah Smith said she could not find the justification language that was implied in the rationale in the actual copy of the policy. She added that section 3 of the policy was close, but it

was not the same.

Director Liedel asked whether the policy was correct or whether it could be fixed by updating the policy language now.

Senator Deborah Smith that the limitations needed to be included specifically in the policy language and that she would vote against the revision if it was not included.

Senator Nickels added that section 3 was awkwardly written and then said that language would need to be cleaned up when it goes back to committee.

Associate Vice President Tillett thanked Senator Nickels for the clarification. She said that the intention of the committee was to show that if you earned a degree somewhere else, you could

not transfer those courses to a �Ը������� program. Only courses being counted for a KSU certificate could count.

Senator Boyd-Swan asked whether that meant that none of the courses that counted toward a graduate certificate could be applied to a graduate degree.

Associate Vice President Tillett agreed that her interpretation was correct.

Senator De La Cruz Cabrera suggested that item 3 will also need to address the maximum number of credits that can be transferred toward a certificate.

Associate Vice President Tillett replied that 50% of a certificate must be taken at Kent.

Senator Torres wanted to know why students could not transfer courses from other universities to count toward their graduate degree.

Associate Vice President Tillett said that if a student earned a degree somewhere else, that student could not transfer the courses. If a degree was not earned, 12 credits could be transferred.

There were no further comments or questions.

The motion to send the policy back to committee passed unanimously.

9.    Old Business

Action Items: 

1. Provost’s Response to Course Scheduling Report and Provost’s Response

(from Course Scheduling Committee at previous Faculty Senate meeting)

Chair Kaplan explained the report and the response. He invited Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley to speak.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley thanked the subcommittee that worked on the report. She praised their effort and said that her response accepted the recommendations that they put forward. She then invited comments or questions.

Senator Deborah Smith asked what it means to “maximize the space usage.”

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley replied that it was about using rooms in a more seamless way to make sure that those courses that wanted larger spaces could get them, which might mean opening those classes up more to MWF schedules to take advantage of the larger spaces.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith asked whether the patterns in Banner for schedulers would be updated in time for Spring 2027 courses. She wanted to know whether the MW pattern would be added in for the future courses.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley replied that MW has not been excluded from the scheduling pattern and added that the sweet spot was moved from 4:00 to 2:00 p.m. to get the MWF pattern in the sweet spot.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith said that the sweet spot from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. was not a spot in which she knew of anyone teaching.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley pointed out that if we do not start courses early, it will cause problems elsewhere in the schedule.

Senator Torres wondered how 13% of MWF classes would be distributed across colleges.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley responded that she will work with the registrar’s office to come up with a plan. She recognized that advanced courses might need more discussion time.

Senator Vachon asked why is there a 13% threshold for MWF classes if the data is clear that two days per week is better.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley answered that the data was mostly focused on stem courses, but the threshold comes from an ability to use space efficiently. She said we will do the best we can and provide the support that is possible.

Senator Bhargava suggested that Senator Piccirillo-Smith had referred to language on the enrollment website that was not yet edited.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said the language will be changed.

Senator Bhargava moved that Faculty Senate recommend that the Provost share the revisions to that posted scheduling policy’s language with the scheduling committee for a consultation to make sure it is in line with the report before implementing the new scheduling and that that it be done in a timely manner, so parameters can be in place for Spring 2027 schedule building.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley invited Vice President Broghammer to edit the language on the website.

Vice President Broghammer agreed to do so.

Senator Nickels seconded Senator Bhargava’s motion.

The motion passed unanimously.

Senator Deborah Smith said the practice should be reviewed in the future to see how moving from a two to a three day per week schedule freed up classrooms. She brought up a course she taught in which the large lecture halls were used on Mondays and Wednesdays, but smaller rooms were used for group discussions on Fridays, so the schedule change did not free up space in the large lecture hall.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said that this would not exclude people from a using big lecture halls on Mondays and Wednesdays.

Senator Fisch asked how large spaces could be found for a college’s important extracurricular activities.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley agreed that many things matter outside of the classroom, but she said that educational time had to take priority.

Senator Boyd-Swan said we should investigate fill rates when scheduling because MWF courses are ten times less likely to fill than those on two day per week schedules.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley responded that there was not a lot of space to play around with, and she could not see a way to schedule without including MWF courses.

Senator Winkler asked whether there was less room for classes that need big lecture halls.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley responded that there were fewer options for large capacity lecture halls, and with the possibility of some buildings being taken offline, there may be even more restrictions to availability.

Senator Winkler suggested that it sounded like a capital improvement issue and that the argument seemed to be that we need to use the large rooms now because they might not be available in the future.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley responded that we need to use our high-capacity lecture halls as efficiently as possible across the full week of instruction.

Senator Winkler said he felt like he was hearing two separate things: (1) both teachers and students prefer classes that are scheduled two days per week; and (2) we really need to fill rooms. He wanted to know where the extra students for those rooms would be coming from.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley responded that the students were already in MWF classes. She said that if he was asking to not have Friday classes, that would not fit with the recommendation of the committee; she said that we currently use Fridays at the percentage that the committee put forth and that she agreed to.

Senator Winkler asked what would happen if the MWF offerings were not successful.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley responded that if that occurred, we could revisit the scheduling process.

Senator Winkler said that the bulk of his students were in the College Credit Plus (CCP) program, and they preferred having Fridays off. He wanted to know what would happen at his campuses and others if CCP students rejected Friday offerings. He wanted to know what other senators thought of the issue.

Secretary Dauterich brought up the idea of a point of order in Robert’s Rules of Order and said that perhaps a motion needed to be made if we were going to continue discussion of the scheduling report.

Senator Smith acknowledged that we had voted on an amendment, but she was still confused about how the Provost’s proposal to set a 13% minimum to MWF courses would not actually bring the number of those courses back to pre-Spring 2026 levels. She said to do that the 13% would have to be set as a maximum.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley said that she was trying to not take away people’s choices; setting a maximum might do that for those who preferred a MWF schedule. She said that she used the word “minimum” because that was how it was worded in the proposal.

Senator Deborah Smith responded that she would prefer that the language said that the courses be returned to pre-Spring 2026 levels without any mention of maximums or minimums.

Senator Vachon asked whether we would be voting to accept the Provost’s report or not.

Senator Deborah Smith moved to endorse the original report of the committee.

Senator Tippey seconded.

There was no further discussion.

The motion passed unanimously.

Executive Vice President and Provost Tankersley then provided pizza to the attendees.

2. Attendance Policy (presented by Student Ombuds Amy Quillin)

A motion was made to accept the revision of the policy (Deborah Smith/Evey).

Ombuds Quillen then invited comments or questions.

There were no comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously.

3. Kent Core Update (presented by Senator David Dees)

Chair Kaplan summarized the discussion, which was continued from the previous meeting. He said that Senator Dees had suggested that Faculty Senate could vote to pass the outcomes and the oversight committee listed below; Faculty Senate could then move to a discussion of course distributions, but he suggested that we could vote on those in a future meeting.                                

1. Big Six Outcomes (scroll to bottom of page 9 in )

A motion was made to approve the outcomes (Torres/Piontkivska).

Chair Kaplan then invited comments or questions.        

Senator Dees said he heard from a faculty member who already uses the outcomes in their major; he said that was good, but Faculty Senate should be considering these outcomes as those for general education as a program.

There were no further comments or questions.                          

The outcomes passed unanimously.

2. Faculty Oversight Committee (scroll to pages 10-13 in )

A motion was made to approve the formation of the committee (Torres/Dauterich).

Chair Kaplan then invited comments or questions.

There were no comments or questions.

The motion passed unanimously.

 3. Kent Core Update (presented by Senator David Dees) 

Course Distribution Options ()

Senator Dees gave some context for each of the options. He encouraged everyone to take the options back to their constituents. He mentioned that the models could still be tweaked. He added that he would be happy to hear a better name than “pressing issues” for one category under consideration.

He then invited comments or questions.

Senator Tippey asked what the black boxes were in the presentation slide.

Senator Dees explained how the graph worked.

Senator Maguire commented that the subcommittee tried to provide four options that differed significantly.

Senator Torres added that he hoped that after passing the two items earlier, it would be clear that the new model is its own program with its own set of outcomes, and he was hoping that the conversation at colleges would not be about how it benefits their particular programs, but about how it benefits all students.

Senator Ewing from CCI received four letters (linked ) from different constituents that stressed the need for more flexibility for more highly sequenced and professionally oriented programs. She said that she believed Option D would be the most flexible. She also wanted to know whether students could double count the civics course in that option.

 Senator Dees agreed that the course could be double counted in that option.

Senator Ewing also asked about Option C and whether other courses could fall under oral communication.

Senator Dees said other courses could be added to change it, but that would be up to the newly approved oversight committee.

Associate Vice President Tillett said that if American Civics is its own category in the Kent Core, there would be no double counting.

Senator Dees responded that the first three options that did not allow double counting could potentially be confusing to students.

Senator Cunningham said that most of the working group also liked keeping the civics course separate. She then made the following statement:

“As you consider these models and options, I strongly recommend that we retain Research Writing as a required course in our general education curriculum. Its role isn’t interchangeable with other courses, nor is it redundant with existing requirements; rather, it provides a necessary foundation that supports student success across disciplines. Retaining Research Writing as a requirement ensures that all students are equipped with the core written literacies necessary for success across the entire curriculum and after graduation.

Again, I want to remind this body that for a significant number of our students, ENG 21011 – Research Writing – is not a “second” writing course because many students complete ENG 11011 – College Writing (the “first” course) while still in high school with their high school teachers and classmates through College Credit Plus. That means Research Writing is often their first sustained writing experience in a university setting.

While students learn about finding, evaluating, and integrating scholarship and using academic databases and citation conventions in order to write a sustained research paper that prepares students for writing-intensive courses and for writing in their majors, perhaps what’s more important now is that they develop information literacy, critical thinking, and, increasingly, AI literacy in this course. Research Writing teaches students to ask meaningful questions, evaluate sources, and construct original arguments—skills that are essential not only for academic success but for navigating generated AI so that they’re able to assess and refine generated text. If students are going to use AI effectively, they need to know what good writing is, how to produce it, how to evaluate it, and how to rethink and revise it. Research Writing helps them learn exactly that.

I want to remind everyone that most public universities in Ohio have retained a second writing course as part of general education. Again, Ohio State doesn’t enjoy shared governance, and their Administration removed their second writing course without faculty consultation. Many of our peer institutions—including The University of Akron, Cleveland State, the University of Cincinnati, Miami University, Ohio University, the University of Toledo, and Youngstown State—continue to require a second writing course as part of their general education curriculum.

It is also important to note that in the original survey data that informed what became the “Big Six,” written communication emerged as the top priority. While this has since been reframed as “effective communication” to align with AAC&U learning outcomes, the initial emphasis on writing reflects a clear consensus about its ubiquity and importance. Retaining Research Writing is not only pedagogically sound but also consistent with the original intent of the curriculum redesign survey. Removing it or diluting it would create a significant gap in students’ preparation while in college as well as in their careers and doesn’t provide them with the best education possible.”

Senator Bhargava said that it is important that the electives are often picked by the program, and she hoped that people would think about what that could mean. She suggested “directed studies” as a possible option for renaming the “pressing issues” category.

Senator Vachon said that she wanted to weigh in on why she wanted the civics course kept separate; she did not like it because in Option D, it is possible that the only humanities course ever taken by students could be the civics course. She encouraged people to consider how humanities help shape future graduates.

Senator Maguire read the following statement:                                       

“To paraphrase Steven Covey in his seminal book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, most people listen with the intent to reply, defend, or persuade, rather than to truly understand a speaker’s perspective.

I ask that for the next two minutes, we all put down our phones, look away from our email, and whatever else we might be doing to pass the time, and truly listen to this statement…

COMM15000 should be a requirement in the Pathways of Inquiry—or at least an alternative to Research Writing.

In COMM15000, students learn a wide range of practical communication skills and knowledge to help them succeed in personal and professional settings—skills like effectively presenting information and persuading audiences; giving and receiving constructive feedback; information literacy; and argumentation, among others. As part of the speech-making process, students learn how to use databases to find academic and popular-press evidence to support their claims, to evaluate the credibility and appropriateness o f that evidence, to use that evidence to support their claims, and to cite those sources orally. They learn to write speeches that exhibit clarity, efficiency, effectiveness, and appropriateness for disparate audiences, contexts, and goals, as well as APA formatting of references. They learn how to listen critically, weigh the strength of a speaker’s arguments, and assess the credibility of their sources. They learn how to use their voices, facial expressions, movement, and posture to convey credibility, dynamism, and identification with audiences, along with designing and presenting visual aids to help audiences truly understand their intended meaning. And as of Fall 2026, it will have a unit specifically focused on the effective and ethical use of AI in the speechmaking process. In addition, students in this course learn to work collaboratively in small groups, create a positive communication climate, and provide effective and supportive feedback.

COMM15000 actualizes most of ENG21011 (Research Writing) Learning Objectives. The primary difference between these courses is the channel used to communicate: The written word vs. the spoken word.

COMM 15000 Meets the Big Six

In his presentation at our last meeting, David Dees specified the Big 6 Learning Outcomes as the guiding framework for our new Kent Core. For Learning Outcome #3 (Effective Communication Skills), “Students will learn how to craft clear messages, actively listen to and engage with new ideas, and develop skills to provide constructive feedback in various educational settings.” As I just noted, all these skills are taught in COMM15000. This course also connects to Learning Outcome #1 (Flexible Thinking), #2 – Effective Collaboration, #4 – Ethical and Socially Responsible Decision-Making Skills, #5 – Information Literacy, and #6 – Self-Discovery and Personal Development.

COMM 15000 Meets the Assessment Charge of the Higher Learning Commission

One of the primary reasons for revising the Kent Core was based on feedback from the Higher Learning Commission.  Specifically, they were concerned about the lack of assessment in this common experience for students.  In his presentation, David Dees indicated that the committee selected the AAC&U VALUE Rubrics to address this. When you look at the AAC&U website, there are three Value Rubrics dedicated to Learning Outcome #3 (Effective Communication): Oral Communication, Reading, and Written Communication. Anyone who has taken a class in assessment or research methods knows that the use of multiple measures improves the quality of information garnered through them. As such, we would be remiss to use only the written communication rubric to assess this learning outcome. It is also interesting to note that of the three rubrics to assess Effective Communication, only one includes “communication” in its title—and it is precisely what would be used to assess student learning from COMM15000.

COMM 15000 Prepares Students for Life Outside of KSU

Beginning in grade school, students learn to write. This continues throughout the entirety of their education, including here at �Ը�������. In contrast, according to a recent study by the National Communication Association, less than 10% of students ever receive training in public speaking.

As I noted quite vociferously in our last meeting, new graduates are being fired at exponential rates within the first six months of employment after graduation. The most frequently cited reasons are poor communication skills, struggles with feedback, inadequate problem-solving abilities, and a lack of professionalism. As Guy Nguyen, Chief Education & Career Development Advisor for Intelligent.com notes, “Although they may have some theoretical knowledge from college, they often lack the ‘soft skills’ required to succeed in the work environment.” Look at virtually any list of the “soft skills” needed to be successful, and you will find oral communication at the top.

Additionally, most research on civic engagement highlights the role that public speaking, critical listening, and collaboration play in developing an informed and empowered citizenry.

Moreover, numerous other universities across Ohio (and the nation) require some form of Public Speaking course for their students.  In a world where our students are competing for increasingly fewer jobs, ensuring they have similar skills to their competitors is essential for our graduates.

 Requiring (only) ENG21011 is problematic

As was noted at our last Senate meeting, many programs offer professional degrees for which a research writing course would unnecessarily burden their students’ progress toward degree completion and successful job placement.

The Ohio Department of Higher Education’s requirements for a second writing course as outlined by OT36 state: “Regardless of the approach to the second course, the focus of the course must be writing, and students must be given opportunities to revise, reflect, and get personal feedback on their written work” This requirement is akin to �Ը�������’s requirements for Writing Intensive Courses (WICs) already placed within degree programs. Internal assessments through exit interviews show that these WICs are vital to the growth, development, and success of our graduates, as they learn to use databases to research, analyze evidence, develop arguments, and use APA style and formatting.

Moreover, as Senator Cunningham noted in our last Senate meeting, one of the distinguishing features of Research Writing is education on how to conduct academic research, read articles, and make sense of the complex information presented in other higher-level courses.  However, based on the language within OT36, there are numerous other opportunities in our Pathways of Inquiry for these skills to be taught (including COMM15000). As noted on p. 16 of the OT36 Learning Outcomes manual any course approved to be taught as a social science requires students to “be able to explain the primary quantitative and qualitative research methods used in the specific social and behavioral science discipline” and to “be able to explain the range of relevant information sources in the specific social and behavioral science discipline”.

In the new Pathways of Inquiry model, there are at least 6 credits that are required to meet these standards.  It appears these skills (conduct academic research, read articles, and make sense of complex information) are already set to be taught by other units in the Pathways model.  Additionally, I know many disciplines teach these skills in multiple courses throughout their curricula.

Conclusion

Although for all intents and purposes, ENG21011 would be a third writing requirement, I am NOT advocating for removing it from the new Pathways of Inquiry. I AM asking that we create a “choose from” menu that allows students to select either Research Writing or COMM15000 to fulfill a Pathways of Inquiry requirement regardless of model—a choice that will be guided by their educational and professional goals. 

This compromise is in the best interests of our students.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge a proverbial elephant in the room. I have spoken to multiple faculty members in English who have expressed concern that if Research Writing is not a required course, there will be job loss, particularly among the adjuncts who have become integral to their school and its culture. This is not something we want to see happen to anyone. But there is a silver lining… Those faculty may be able to teach COMM15000, depending on training, availability, etc.”

Senator Meshkani said that she would submit comments from CAED to Secretary Dauterich through email (link ), but she encouraged senators to think about flexibility as much as possible. 

Senator Mangrum agreed with Senator Meshkani.

Senator Maguire asked to be recognized again.

Chair Kaplan said that he had already spoken at length, but that he could use his discretion as Chair to acknowledge Senator Maguire’s comments.         

Senator Maguire said he did not know there was a limit on senators speaking in the bylaws for Faculty Senate. He then said there was a big concern about jobs; he was worried that we would lose adjunct and NTT jobs. He added that while that is troublesome, it cannot be the top priority. He stressed that, as indicated in our mission statement, students and their job preparedness must be our top priority.

Senator Dauterich qualified that the rule about when senators could be acknowledged on the floor was not in the Faculty Senate Bylaws, but rather in Robert’s Rules of Order (3:33), which allows a second chance for a member to speak as long as other members with rights to the floor who have not yet spoken are not waiting to speak.

Senator Dees thanked everyone.

Chair Kaplan thanked everyone.

There were no further comments or questions.

10.   New Business

Peer Evaluations (presented by Director Jennifer Marcinkiewicz)

Director Marcinkiewicz presented and explained the following documents:

Chair Kaplan invited questions. 

Senator Smith asked whether we would be voting on the process.

Chair Kaplan asked for a motion.

Director Marcinkiewicz explained how the peer evaluation process portion of SB 1 would work.

Senator Wagner asked where the completed evaluation would live.

Director Marcinkiewicz responded that she thought it would be handled through the Scholarly system.

There was a motion and a second to approve the process (Dauterich/Nickels).

Senator Boyd-Swan asked about how much pressure this could put on small departments. She was also concerned about how evaluators could be assigned without consideration of rank or type given that there would be a power dynamic.

Senator Piontkivska asked about training for evaluators.

Director Marcinkiewicz said that she heard the concerns from Senators Boyd-Swan and Piontkivska and said that we should start the clock now and let units decide how to handle the rotation of evaluators and spread them out over time. She said that mandated training was not recommended, but she added that the CTL could provide workshops related to good processes for that.

Senator Deborah Smith mentioned that this is a legal requirement, and she added that the people at all levels were meant to spread the work around. She said that NTTs could refuse service if they wished.

Senator Bhargava added that she was hoping that NTTs would be invited to participate in all units and wanted to know who made the decision about who the evaluators would be.

Director Marcinkiewicz replied that she did not have the answer to the last question. She suggested that each unit could develop its own processes.

Senator Torres said that step one in the document would alleviate Senator Boyd-Swan’s concerns, and he said that he supported the idea of ranks not being presented so that faculty could identify preferred evaluators.

Senator Roxburgh asked whether each unit could determine how they could stage the process.

Chair Kaplan and Director Marcinkiewicz agreed that it could.

Senator Mocioalca asked for clarification. She said that she understood that each unit would decide how to stagger the process and said that the chair would come up with a list of evaluators to make sure everyone shared the work. She also asked whether there would be a list of things that needed to be evaluated.   

Director Marcinkiewicz said the list of issues to be evaluated is in the proposed process and confirmed Senator Mocioalca’s understanding of how the process would work.

Senator Vachon asked how quickly this needed to be done according to SB 1.

Senator Deborah Smith said that the law was vague and did not have a time frame, so the committee settled on five years; she added that while the law says there must be peer reviews, it did not add much more than that.

Director Marcinkiewicz read from the law, which states, “Each state institution of higher education shall establish a written system of peer evaluations for faculty members with emphasis placed on the faculty members' professional development regarding the faculty members' teaching responsibilities.”

Senator Boyd-Swan said that she was not concerned that NTTs could evaluate TTs, but she was concerned that an NTT might feel pressured to review higher ranked faculty and wanted them to have a way out.

Chair Kaplan expressed a preference that the system be based on rank, but he said he understood the need for flexibility.

Senator Piccirillo-Smith said she wanted clarification that this would only be used to comply with the law.

Director Marcinkiewicz affirmed that this was the case.

Senator Salaba pointed out that it was a process and not a policy.

Senator Bhargava asked where the process would go next.

Director Marcinkiewicz suggested that if it is approved, then it should be connected to the annual reviews that are required by state law and that the process would be added to that requirement.

Senator Mocioalca asked for clarification. She wanted to know what would happen if a faculty member received two negative reviews and what would happen if that kicked in after tenure review.

Director Marcinkiewicz clarified that the annual review could trigger that, but in the case of this peer review, faculty could request more frequent reviews to avoid having that happen. The peer review would generally happen only once every five years. By itself, it could not trigger post-tenure review.

Senator Boyd-Swan said that there is nothing in the law that requires this to be evidence or part of the annual review process.

Director Marcinkiewicz agreed with her.

Senator Deborah Smith said that SB 1 said SSIs must be 25% of annual evaluation and wondered what the other 75% was.

Chair Kaplan called the question.

The motion to approve the process passed unanimously.

11.   Additional Items

President Diacon spoke about the FY 27 budget. He said that the planning is always a moving target driven by projected revenues. He said we are just seeing returns and getting an idea about continuing and new enrollment. He said we will enroll roughly 600 fewer students next fall, almost all graduate students. To deliver a FY 27 balance budget, expenditures will have to be reduced by 18 million dollars, including a 5-10% reduction for most Vice Presidencies, a 3.7% reduction for Academic Affairs and another likely 10% reduction for three Vice Presidential areas and the President’s Office. He promised more detail at the next FaSBAC meeting but added that bottom line expenditures will have to be reduced in the 5-10 % range. To meet the 18-million-dollar reduction, about 48 currently occupied non-faculty positions will have to be eliminated. 1.5% of the university’s workforce will lose their jobs. In nearly all cases, the employees will get 90 days of full pay. After ten years of expense control, occupied positions will have to be eliminated.

He continued, saying that in 2005 and 2025 Ohio universities enrolled roughly 264, 000 students. He mentioned this because we do need more state support, not less, despite what people may claim. He said that there was a 27.3% decline in FTE support from the state of Ohio from 2005-25. He added that the state cohort funding model also had a huge effect on the budget. He said that the state also abandoned the portion of the law creating cohorts that allowed increases in tuition based on inflation—now the state legislature caps it, and they capped it this year at 3%.

He concluded with four remarks: (1) he acknowledged that T28 was supposed to improve the scenario, and said that without it, we would have had to reduce spending by 22 million dollars rather than 18 million; (2) he said that there was no sugarcoating the impact of 48 employees losing their jobs; (3) he said we will continue to invest strategically in academic programs which will generate more enrollment (e.g., Fashion); and (4)  he stressed that being good stewards of resources in challenging times has allowed annual raises for non-represented employees. He said it is a reminder of what a great university we have, and he credited shared governance for that. He talked about his senate experience with many universities, and he said based on his dataset, we do shared governance better than anyone he has worked with. He added that he is lousy at fighting and sucks at being combative. He said that if others are more combative, he will continue to respond with kindness and a search for conciliation and transparency. He also talked about posthumous degrees and what they meant to a family in Ashtabula. He also praised the Advanced Materials and Liquid Crystal Institute, the �Ը������� Orchestra, the College of Public Health, and several alumni for their accomplishments. He said times are tough, but he suggested there is political light at the end of the tunnel. He is meeting at the Inter-University Council tomorrow with two Republican legislators who have four pro-higher-education bills in the works. He thanked everyone for all they have done and praised shared governance again.

He then turned the microphone over to Interim Senior Vice President Reifsnyder.

Interim Senior Vice President Reifsnyder presented a brief budget summary.  She said that this year is a little different in that there is an early board meeting, so they are trying to get the budget completed more quickly than usual. They are working through data, but they do not have the third quarter forecast available yet. It should be available for the next FaSBAC meeting, and she will report more thoroughly at the May meeting. She said revenue is mainly in auxiliaries, tuition and SSIs are flat, foundation gifts are up, and actual expenses on salaries are trending lower. Telecommunications and maintenance and repair are currently lower than last year, although that could change after classes conclude. Trends are higher in supplies (software costs) and student aid. She said that there will be a better understanding by the end of the week and that she will be able to determine how things will move forward. Concerning the remainder of the budget cycle, it will go FaSBAC next week, and then it will go to board members the following week in advance of the May 20 Board of Trustees meeting where they will approve the budget.

Senator Deborah Smith asked whether there was time for questions.

President Diacon replied that he could answer questions.

Senator Deborah Smith asked whether those being let go were classified staff.

President Diacon said he did not know.

Interim Senior Vice President Reifsnyder said they would know more next week.

Senator Boyd-Swan asked whether there were numbers available on T28.

Interim Senior Vice President Reifsnyder said there was an aggregation of what savings there were and said she would bring that to the May meeting.

12.     Announcements/ Statements for the Record

Emeritus Professor Janson read the following statement:

“It’s been ten years since my retirement from �Ը������� in August 2015. Over most of these years, I have enjoyed quietly participating with everyone here, reporting to the Retired Faculty Association, and seeing old friends once a month.

With my decade-old active experience in the senate as a representative of the College of the Arts, service on the executive committee, faculty secretary, and 2 years as chair of the senate, I now feel out of touch with quickly advancing progress of the university. Therefore, I believe that I have found the perfect retired professor to carry on in my stead. I’m positive that you will all agree that our most recent past chair of the senate, who is now retired and chosen by the retirees to represent them, is beyond qualification. I give you Tracy Laux who will certainly serve with mathematical precision.”    

13.    Adjournment                                                     

Chair Kaplan adjourned the meeting at 6:37 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Edward Dauterich

Secretary, Faculty Senate