Faculty Senate Minutes, May 6, 2022

August 10, 2022

Purdue Northwest Faculty Senate

May 6, 2022     10:00 AM-12:40 PM       Via Zoom


Voting Members Present:
Khair Al Shamaileh, Lee Artz, Minoo Ashoori, Matthew Bauman, Ralph Cherry, Renee Conroy, Joan Dorman, Anne Edwards, Tony Elmendorf, Omer Farook, Maria Garcia-Verdugo, Rob Hallock, Meden Isaac-Lam, Hansung Kim, Kenny Kincaid, Dave Kozel, Roger Kraft, Bob Kramer, Maureen Mascha, Vincent Marasco, Meghan McGonigal-Kenney, Robert Merkovsky, Michael Mick, Colette Morrow, Shoji Nakayama, David Nalbone, Dave Pratt, Vanessa Quinn, Charles Rarick, Sheila Rezak, Tom Roach, Julia Rogers, Michael Roller, Kim Scipes, Tony Sindone, Michelle Spaulding, Diane Spoljoric, Sham Tickoo, Shengyong Zhang

Voting Members Absent:
Jai Agrawal, Tantatape Brahmasrene, Magesh Chandramouli, Mohammed Errihani,

Non-Voting Members Present:
Alan McCafferty

Others Present:
Arafin Angriawan, Pamela Ayala, Gokarna Aryal, Geoffrey Barrow, Mike Biel, Dave Bolton, Michael Bourgeois, Heather Bowers, Joy Colwell, Michael Conolly, Meghan Cook, Elizabeth Babcock Depew, Colin Fewer, Jeff Greg, Michelle Gilhooly, Lisa Goodnight, Shuhui Grace Yang, Debra Grant, Anne Gregory, Emily Hixon, Chris Holford, Lisa Hopp, Nicky Jackson, Keyuan Jiang, Mike Johnson, Tom Keon, Dana Krill, Michael Lynn, Paul McGrath, Catherine Murphy, Ezra Mutai, Neil Nemeth, Catharine Olsen, Laura Pardonek, Amanda Passmore, Debra Pratt, Dietmar Rempfer, Geoff Schultz, Rachel C. Smith, Rebecca Stankowski, Jonathan Swarts, Li Tan, Nicoleta Tarfulea, Diana Underwood-Gregg, Kayla Vasilko, Kelly Vaughan, Feng-Song Wang, Maria Watson, Jen Williams, Tim Winders, Lin Zhao


  1. Determination of Quorum.
    • Quorum determined at 10:15
  2. Call to Order.
  3. Approval of the Agenda
    • Dave Pratt requested an amendment to add SLDC Curriculum Documents under New Business; Senate Documents for Discussion.
      1. Seconded by Colette Morrow
      2. Opposed by T. Elmendorf
      3. Point of order (Tony Sindone)
        1. 22 in favor
        2. 12 opposed
        3. Motion passed
  • Motion for approval by Dave Pratt
  • Seconded by Ralph Cherry
  • Approved by show of hands
  1. Approval of the Senate Minutes from April 8, 2022.
    • Motion for approval by Michelle Spaulding
    • Seconded by Rob Merkovsky
    • Approved by show of hands
  2. Remarks by the Senate Chair (Kim Scipes)
    • Scipes said it was an honor to serve as the 2021-22 Senate Chair. They thanked the Senate, Committees, and the Senate Secretary. They advocated more collaboration between faculty and administration.
  3. Remarks by the Chancellor (Tom Keon)
    • Chancellor Keon thanked the faculty for getting through another difficult but successful year transitioning through COVID and for their hard work ensuring that our students are getting the best education they possibly could get. The Chancellor turned his time over to the Provost.
    • The Provost thanked the Chair, members of the Senate, and the faculty for another good year despite the many challenges, changing conditions. They said early estimates for next fall look strong but there is certainly still much more work to be done over the summer and into the fall semester. They agreed with the Chair’s remarks about the importance of faculty opinions and requested the Senate continue working with them to help identify impactful changes, and prioritize those changes that will help ensure the students, faculty and staff continue to make PNW the premier institution in Northwest Indiana. They said they are very interested in working with the Senate next year to resolve some standing issues. They added that revisions to the P&T process are very important, that we’ve got some moves to make more clarity for our candidates. They said their office sent requests to Faculty Affairs one calendar year ago and that they would like to see those changes be brought up discussed by the faculty and implemented in the process. They said they are awaiting response to a recommendation submitted by them to the Budget Committee six months ago about increasing salary at the time of promotion. The Provost said they also look forward to discussing a policy has that been sitting on recommendations for a number of years, that would reduce administrative footprint and bring about more efficiency in the college with some structural changes.
      1. Lee Artz said it appears that there is a breath of fresh air in the Provost’s Office and expressed appreciation. With consideration of increases in salary proposals and budgets across the university, Lee Artz asked if the administration has also considered providing some small increase to the Faculty Senate. They pointed out the ongoing struggle to provide course release adding that even the releases that are able to be provided are well below what is given to graduate assistants and adjuncts. They said it would underscore the administration’s commitment to shared governance to provide some small stipend increase to the Faculty Senate.
      2. The Provost replied, saying there has been an ongoing effort for the last three years, all of the colleges have been increasing the grad stipend rates to match the other universities. We were behind other institutions, even Fort Wayne, we have now caught up within a few dollars of what the graduates are paid. The Provost also said they made a commitment to Professor Roach as the incoming Chair to sit down with them and discuss what stipend was given to our Faculty Senate. They said their opinion on this would be swayed a lot if the standing committees would move some of the documents forwarded to them to a resolution. They reiterated the commitment to Tom Roach that they would discuss over the summer what the Senate budget is and what their needs are.
      3. Tony Sindone said revisions to the P&T document since 2017 have not resolved the issues and that those issues will be explored over the summer with intention to present a new document to the Senate at the August meeting.
  1. Unfinished Business
    • New Senators update (Tony Elmendorf)
      1. Elmendorf said all of the units that need new needed new senators have completed their elections with the exception of Managerial Studies. They introduced newly elected Senators
        1. Vanessa Quinn (Biology)
        2. Gokarna Aryal (CES)
        3. Quamar Niyaz (CES)
        4. Lee Artz (CHESS)
        5. Geoff Schultz (SoEC)
        6. Bankole Fasanya (Tech)
        7. George Stefanek (tech)
        8. Janet Chaney (CON)
      2. At-Large seats
        1. Karen Covington (Tech)
        2. Cari Furst (CON)
  • Membership on Standing Committees (Tony Elmendorf)
    1. Elmendorf said membership requirements for Gen Ed & Assessment is seven members, ideally with representation from each college. Currently there are not many Senators from the College of Business and those we do have are already committed to other standing committees. They said it is generally accepted that those who are assigned to standing committees remain on their standing committees for the entirety of their terms. Minoo Ashoori is in the middle of their term in Nominations and so cannot be moved. They said Michael Mick is filling in for Maureen Mascha and would be their replacement, but that is not a real option, either. T. Elmendorf thanked all newly elected and reelected Senators for filling out the preference survey. They said they were highly constrained by the requirements of the bylaws about who is to serve in what capacity on which Standing Committee as listed in the document.
    2. Elmendorf provided a request for those wishing to switch standing committees to do so in the following manner.
      1. First, it has to be in a manner that actually preserves the requirements listed in the Bylaws.
      2. Secondly, that you inform the Chair of the Nominations Committee, Professor Isaac lamb, and the Senate secretary, Alan McCafferty, about any switches that you want to make.
    3. Motion to move to action (Tony Elmendorf)
      1. Seconded by Rob Merkovsky
      2. Vote on suspension of rules, moving to action
        1. Majority voted in favor by show of hands
      3. Motion to approve (Tony Elmendorf)
        1. Seconded by Dave Pratt
        2. Approved by show of hands
  • Elected Standing Committee Chairs to date (Tony Elmendorf)
    1. Student Affairs – Michelle Spaulding
    2. Ed Policy – Diane Spoljoric
    3. Curriculum – vacant
    4. Gen Ed & assessment – vacant
    5. Nominations – Meden Isaac-Lam
    6. Faculty Affairs – Tony Sindone
  • Nomination for APR Committee and approval (Tony Elmendorf)
    1. One nomination received for the Academic Program Review Committee.
      1. Cari Furst
    2. Elmendorf motioned for Senate approval of Cari Furst to serve in that capacity.
      1. Seconded by R. Kramer
      2. Approved by show of hands
    3. New Business
      • Curriculum Documents Approval (Lee Artz)
        1. Eight documents were presented to the Senate. Three of them are part of a Forensic Science minor, two of them are in Biology, and the remaining five are part of the reorganization of the Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies minor, including special topics, an introduction, and internships. All eight documents were approved.
          1. Lee Artz motioned to approve eight curriculum documents.
            1. Seconded by Joan Dorman
            2. Approved by show of hands
  • Senate Documents for Action:
    1. Placeholder (Kim Scipes)
      1. Documents previously passed by Senate
    2. FSD 21-13 Experiential Learning Subordinate Committee (Dave Pratt)
      1. Pratt said the Gen Ed & Assessment Committee decided it would be appropriate to expand the role of the Experiential Learning Committee from an ad hoc to a subordinate committee of Gen Ed & Assessment.
        1. Motioned for approval by Dave Pratt
        2. Seconded by Julia Rogers
        3. Approved by show of hands
      2. FSD 21-12 General Education Course List Update (Dave Pratt)
        1. Motioned for approval by D. Pratt
        2. Seconded by Julia Rogers
        3. Approved by show of hands
      3. FSD 21-11 Resolution for changes to the incomplete policy (Anne Edwards)
        1. Edwards addressed some concerns with the resolution to change the deadline for completing an incomplete from the second attending semester, the 12th week, or the second attending semester to one calendar year, after which the incomplete would go to an IS. There was a lot of discussion about whether there could be a withdrawal or whether it could go to an IX and learned that would go against the policies of the Purdue system. They have in their resolution some clarification of the Purdue System Policy about when an incomplete should be granted. The resolution was kept that students would have to achieve a permanent grade in the course no later than one year. These limits can be extended with the professor’s approval.
        2. Dave Kozel said the current document does not consider when students have situations that may last more than one year. Why are we not saying if the student is not enrolled for a year that the grade reverts to an ‘I’ or an ‘IX’? An IX is assigned by the registrar if the student is not enrolled three years after the incomplete was given. Incomplete will be permanent, does not affect scholarship index. This was done so that returning students were not on probation.
          1. Jen Williams said PUFW and PWL have gotten rid of the IX grade and now consider it a legacy grade in the system. They also said grades would not revert to IF’s until a year after the semester has ended and would not recalculate standing at that point. If the student came back they would have to repeat those courses needed for their program at which point the previous grade would be excluded from their cumulative GPA.
        3. Hansung Kim clarified that many engineering courses with labs are offered once a year. If a student misses too many labs they get an incomplete and are asked to retake the course the following year without paying tuition to complete. In this case their grade will be published over one year and one semester. Is the extension still available in this case?
          1. Anne Edwards said that if the professor knows the incomplete is not going to be able to be completed in a year under this new system, then there is a form for providing the circumstances for the extension. The form also allows the professor to declare the date at which they believe the incomplete should be completed.
        4. Jen Williams said that if a student does not come back the grade will revert to an IX legacy grade. In extreme situations the Dean of Students is consulted to weigh in on the matter and the students record would become inactive.
        5. Kim Scipes called the question.
          1. Anne Edwards moved that the changes to the incomplete policy be adopted.
          2. Approved by show of hands
        6. FSD 21-15 Student of the Month Award (Kenny Kincaid)
          1. Motioned for approval by K. Kincaid
          2. Seconded by Tony Sindone
          3. Lisa Hopp asked who will be financially supporting the award and the clerical work that is going to be done.
          4. Kenny Kincaid said the committee is working with the Dean of Students as far as what could be offered to the recipients of the award and received support. Most of it would be university recognition. One aspect of the clerical is how we might go about putting on our monitors. The Committee is also hopeful to receive support from marketing.
          5. Lisa Hopp said the Dean of Students Office does not have clerical support to handle the work necessary to move this forward.
          6. Tony Elmendorf said the Faculty Awards Committees do an enormous amount of work to solicit nomination, evaluate nominees, and more. They do that without any clerical support and it still manages to get done. So, the committee that handles the Student of the Month Award should be able to do the same without the need for hiring anyone.
          7. Kenny Kincaid added that it was assumed that as the committee came together it would handle all operations with exception to having access to monitors and the website where the student would be promoted. It was decided the program as a whole would be run by a committee within Student Affairs.
          8. Approved by show of hands.
        7. FSD 21-17 Resolution on Recreational Athletics: Physical Activity Awards (Kenny Kincaid)
          1. With this resolution, we were looking at creating a cocurricular award that would go through a committee. We were looking at the different aspects of the committee, which would be given to Student Affairs. We are hoping to work with the Dean of Students that could use its cocurricular software to track student participants. We have different facilities, as well as health and fitness faculty and staff, that could help design physical activity readiness in stages. And then we have faculty and staff that can help design the guidelines and student parameters for earning badges in coordination, again, with the ODOS. This came from a committee on physical activity which worked with the Dean of Students and the Provost.
            1. Motioned for approval by Kenny Kincaid
            2. Seconded by Maureen Mascha
            3. Approved by show of hands
  • Senate Documents for Discussion:
    1. FSD 21-16 Resolution to ensure timely consideration of faculty curriculum proposals (Lee Artz)
      1. Over the last two years there were incidents where individual faculty proposals were circumvented by either the department chair or the Curriculum Committee within the department. This resolution is intended to guarantee the right of individual faculty to take an initiative and to have a discussion on their initiative. The resolution emphasizes that the department makes the decision after a discussion and vote. The document states that the department must have a discussion within 30 days and if faculty are not allowed to weigh in on it then it would be moved to the college level. The right to appeal a decision by their department or college should be extended to every individual faculty. The Executive Committee thought it needed some clarification on questions like voting requirements. Not every faculty would be required to vote, we can’t require faculty to vote, but they should have the opportunity to vote on each curriculum initiative. If they don’t vote, or if they abstained, and that should be part of the discussion. The other question that came up is whether the 30-day limit is inappropriate. It might be better that the department discussed this at its next scheduled meeting, which avoids the question of timing, from when a resolution is presented and put on Curriculog, and when the department can discuss it.
      2. Tony Elmendorf asked if this is the current process or if something new is being proposed.
      3. Lee Artz said the resolution that appears above is the intent. The Committee wants to underscore the right of faculty, individual faculty to make a curriculum proposal, it doesn’t mean that you have the right to have it approved, you simply have the right to have it discussed and voted on.
      4. Tony Elmendorf suggesting presenting the proposed document side-by-side with the current curriculum process to make clear what is being changed.
      5. Shoji Nakayama said they received and email from a colleague expressing concern over the revised resolution point number seven. They said this resolution will allow appealing for approval directly to the Curriculum Committee Chair without standards and would give a single individual faculty member the unlimited power to bypass the department and college level curriculum rejection. They are saying this policy is inconsistent with the majority vote principle for those Senate voting process with a binary result. And the they also say there is no standards on what can be appealed such as creating a new program, eliminating an existing program, changing of plan of study, change of prerequisites, etc. And under what situation a curriculum document can be appealed, such as the single yes against the majority of no’s, or borderline minority. This policy will shift the curriculum decision from faculty members in academic programs to someone who might not have expertise in the subject areas. So, this document could be get passed solely with the university Curriculum Chair’s decision, which is dangerous to the democratic principle of the curriculum review and approval process by ignoring faculty members opinions. The result from the Curriculum Chair could be against all faculty members’ expert opinions in their academic unit, but the proposal originator.
      6. Maureen Mascha said they were confused as to when an individual faculty member can propose this. Assuming that neither the department nor the college approves it. In other words, it gets disapproved. Does that person then have the right to circumvent those votes and bring it to the Senate?
      7. Lee Artz clarified that if an individual faculty member presents a resolution, it should be discussed in the department. If they vote to vote it down that should be the end of it. If they vote to approve it, it should go to the next level. This was prompted by individual faculty members presenting a resolution curriculum change that never got discussed in the department. The resolution sits in Curriculog without any action being taken. When we talk about number seven, it suggests that an individual faculty member has the right to appeal, which is not largely different than what happened on other proposals where it goes through the department, the college, the Faculty Senate, and then it gets raised on the floor of the Faculty Senate. And at that point, the individual faculty member can raise their objection, and then the Faculty Senate votes on it, which is been our procedure all along. Item number seven may need to be reworked. This was approved by all five members of the Curriculum Committee. The current discussion is to identify those parts of the resolution that need to be improved, amended or removed.
      8. Maureen Mascha asked if the proposal contains safeguards for situations in which a faculty member might appeal as a result of being dissatisfied with the outcome of their proposal after it goes through the proper channels, circumventing the process.
        1. Tony Sindone said there is a reason why we have curriculum committees at the department level and at the college level. If they ignore a particular faculty’s proposal for a curriculum change, there should be a process as low to the ground as possible not allowing people to leapfrog over the college and go right to the Senate. There should be written procedures on how this works for each college and each department.
      9. Shengyong Zhang asked if the 30-day limit included holidays.
        1. Lee Artz said it should be revised to the next scheduled faculty meeting.
      10. Michael Roller said this proposal is not designed to be punitive, deny voting, or deny decisions of departments. The main concern of the committee is in relation to the educational mission of the institution. We all know departments can act with impunity. There have been documented cases of that happening, and that’s why this resolution is before this body. The intent was to make sure that all curricular proposals that are presented by any member of an eligible voting faculty as defined by the Senate gets a discussion to vote at the department level.
      11. Dave Kozel suggested switching the 30-day limit to the second department meeting to provide enough time for proper discussions and responses.
      12. Colette Morrow said as a point of information that minors also have curriculum processes, it is not limited to departments, and asked that that be considered for the language of the document.
      13. Maureen Mascha questioned point four which states all faculty must vote and asked what happens when someone decides to abstain or otherwise refuse to vote?
        1. Lee Artz said it should be amended to say that all faculty have the opportunity to vote.
      14. Resolution on accurate labeling of department leaders (Tony Sindone)
        1. Sindone said the terms department chair and department head are not really the same thing. Department chairs are largely elected, department heads are appointed by Deans. Designating somebody as the department head versus a department chair would go a long way in ensuring accuracy of what the department leaders are and what roles they play.
        2. Maureen Mascha said that, in their college, the faculty vote on who’s going to be the chair, and then that election is either accepted or vetoed by the dean. So, the Dean has ultimate responsibility to say yes, they agree that this individual will serve as chair and the chair does report to the dean and is part of the Senior Leadership Team of the college. They said differentiating the two terms could lead to more confusion.
          1. Tony Sindone said uncertainty is also confusing and that is the idea behind the proposal. They added that the use of interims is another point of confusion. How long does an interim term last? Speaking to Maureen’s point, COB has one department chair and one interim department head.
          2. Provost Holford said these are administrative appointments in the Purdue system, that we do interchange the terms “head” and “chair,” but we use the term “chair” on this campus. They said they are unaware of any “heads” on this campus. They said they are happy to listen to the discussion and receive a recommendation, but added that they are fairly certain our chairs know they are administrative appointments.
          3. Dave Nalbone said they would argue that the primary place for confusion and the reason for this resolution is that external applicants might be confused. If they look at our system and see that we have people listed as chairs, they might think that they are faculty elected, versus appointed by administrators, and therefore the purpose of the resolution is to provide greater clarity both internally but externally so their applicants are not misled into believing that they are serving at the whims of the faculty, as opposed to an administrator.
        3. SLDC Curriculum Documents (Dave Pratt)
          1. Pratt said the SoEC has a request from two of our Elementary Education programs to replace MA138 with MA153, which is college algebra, and to replace MA151 with STAT301, which is Elementary Statistics. They are continuing to keep the same MA137, Math for Elementary Teachers I, which is a Gen Ed course. No changes are being made within the department in terms of credit units. SoEC voted unanimously for this. There’s a well-documented need for math content to be increased for people becoming teachers, and experts in our field. We’re experts as faculty in the SoEC in our field and for our accreditation requirements for Cape, so we understand what is needed for our candidates to be successful in the classroom as future teachers. They continued by sharing the request for this change, explaining that the Senate Curriculum Committee was asking for not only rationale for their accreditation, which they have already done extensively, but also rationale for program variance from other universities, and evidence of student demand and evidence of public-school teachers’ negative evaluations of how they’ve been prepared. They said the SoEC feels that is unnecessary to respond to such an overwhelming request for information that does not change substantially the requirements, or the service that the math department is providing our students. They said the proposed changes do not reduce the number of credits or courses generated by another department. They said the Math Department was provided the opportunity to voice their opposition during Curriculum Committee meetings but SoEC was not given the opportunity to elaborate and so the document was voted down.
          2. Colette Morrow said, in support of this curricular change, in that it is identified by the School of Education as a need that is essential for secondary education candidates with regard to attainment of learning outcomes in mathematics.
          3. Tony Elmendorf said the Math Department met with SoEC members on January 21 and had an extensive discussion of these issues. They shared a report which was provided to the Curriculum Committee with their response to the curriculum document and was the reason for the rejection of the document from the Curriculum Committee. Anne Edwards, Geoff Schultz and Dave Pratt joined the Math Dept. meeting on January 21 and outlined proposals that they were making to the changes in Elementary Education and Math requirements. Currently, the required math courses are MA137, MA153, and 139. They are now asking that those be MA137, MA153, and STAT301. SoEC stated the rationale is that the Elementary Education majors have a low pass rate on the state required math exam for teachers. And they blame that on the inadequacy of the current math sequence. The current pass rate of 60%, and the average pass rate of all Indiana Elementary Education majors is 65%. And they feel that having their students take what they call higher math would result in a higher pass rate. We have already heard what they propose as the replacement courses for math 138 139 would be math 153, which is college algebra, and STAT301. We asked them for documentation on the number and nature of algebra and statistics questions on the test which these students are showing deficiency in answering lead to this request. The information is no release by educational testing services so the Math Dept. looked it up themselves. T. Elmendorf said they would like to ask that these Senators to whom the document was sent, look at it carefully, so that they will be able to make a considered recommendation as to whether or not to accept this proposal. Now, as has been previously pointed out this document or one very similar to it was already debated extensively on the floor of the Senate in January of 2020. And very little has changed about the rationale for making those changes. Very little has changed about the deficiencies in the School of Education and Counseling rationale. So, they therefore ask that we not actually vote on this proposal at this time. They pointed out that in order for a curriculum proposal to be included in the catalog, it needs to be approved by the Senate by either February or March, that deadline is passed, there is plenty of time for consideration of this document by August or September of next year, which is plenty of time for it to be included in the next catalog. They asked that the Math Department be given the opportunity to discuss this at greater lengths at a later time.
          4. The Chair summarized, saying there are two issues. One is that this has been debated and gone through the process. It went through the Curriculum Committee. The Curriculum Committee found that was inadequate, they rejected it unanimously. They asked for additional information, that information has not been provided. The Chair confirmed that SoEC has not provided any rationale for addressing it again. The Chair opened the floor for comment.
          5. Dave Pratt said the last time this was voted on by the previous Senate Curriculum Committee in 2019 it passed unanimously.
          6. Lee Artz said it was rejected by the Senate in 2020 as they thought more information was needed. They added that the Curriculum Committee has asked many other programs for additional information.
          7. Rob Merkovsky said the key issue here is what best benefits the students and asked what aligns best with the Praxis and the requirements? The content of the Praxis does include geometry is not as heavy on algebra. So we would like to see what the actual content of the practice Praxis is and how this curricular change would benefit rather than detriment or students.
          8. Dave Nalbone said the claim made about requests from the Curriculum Committee being unprecedented is not true. The burden of proof is actually on those submitting the documents to demonstrate that this is an unprecedented request for information. Secondly, why should those outside the School of Education weigh in on this? Because that is what our curriculum process requires. It requires a and taking into consideration the impact upon other units. And that was part of the process.
          9. Tony Elmendorf said this was not resolved in curriculum process because, unlike most curricular issues, the expertise on these issues does not lie solely with the program that is submitting the document. The expertise in mathematics education actually lies in the Mathematics Department with the Mathematics Education faculty. And that isn’t just in a different department, but in a different college, from the School of Education and Counseling.
          10. Geoff Schultz said that the School of Education felt as if their autonomy as a faculty was taken away from them by the Math Dept. They said, as a result of that, in the best interests of their students, they have continued to give the math courses that they are proposing as their requirements through a course substitution process. They said SoEC faculty have basically gone against the Senate because they feel that what was decided was unfair. They said the SoEC has given 72 students course substitutions where they didn’t take the math courses on their plan of study and instead took the ones we think are in their best interest.
          11. Jeff Greg said the proposed course substitutions do not address the mathematical concepts that prospective teachers will be teaching to their students.
          12. Diana Underwood said the Praxis exam was just offered to our students for the first time this fall and faculty from the Math Dept. were given the rationale that the test contained a significant number of questions that are over college algebra and statistics, that is completely false. Questions on the Praxis are the mathematical knowledge for teaching, they are situated within math contents of teaching, they are not questions that have to do with statistics. Another Praxis content area is geometry, which the School of Education is substituting with statistics.
          13. Anne Edwards said the idea that we are preparing students for a test is being overgeneralized. They said students are being prepared for the complex life of a classroom space by teaching them mathematical concepts in general. They said the SoEC was not afforded the opportunity to consult with the department in question as outlined in the curriculum change process established by the Senate.
          14. Provost Holford said we do have a structural problem, and our bylaws are silent on the respective roles of the various committees. They said it is the faculty of the SoEC that bear the responsibility for the impacts of any decision. They said there is an inherent danger if a precedent is set that curriculum decisions at the individual course level are brought to this body to be vetted and resolved. They encouraged the two departments to seek a resolution that is in the best interest of our students.
          15. David Nalbone said there have been several calls from the SoEC to respect their process while they at the same time have said they will ignore the Senate process and have already begun doing so. As a result of that, D. Nalbone moved to table to the discussion
          16. Seconded by Tony Elmendorf
          17. A vote by show of hands was in favor of tabling the discussion.
        4. Reports from Senate Standing Committee Chairs
          • Curriculum (Lee Artz)
            1. Artz said the meeting already had an extensive amount of time taken by their committee and passed the floor.
          • Ed Policy (Anne Edwards)
            1. There are two documents that have come from the Provost Office that are still under consideration in Ed Policy.
              1. Proposal for a University College
              2. Revision of proposed merger between CES/COT
            2. Those were received March 15, 2022 and has been discussed at one meeting so far. The discussion will continue this afternoon. Anne Edwards said they would be happy to collect more data and answer more questions until the end of her term in August.
          • Faculty Affairs (Tony Sindone)
            1. Sindone said FAC looked at the Promotions & Tenure document in August and discovered a lot of things that Rachel Clapp Smith had changed while helping the committee put it together. After many revisions to the document a survey was conducted among people who had intimate knowledge of what the P&T process was this particular year. They received feedback and are now addressing it. They are changing some things that are substantive in the P&T document so that no further revisions are necessary and so people coming into this university new faculty, current faculty will know what the P&T process really is. On the original document it says that candidates should refer to their individual college guidelines for further information, including supporting information to assist them in demonstrating effectiveness and learning discovery and engagement at Purdue University Northwest. What we discovered is that those guidelines are either nonexistent, they are inconsistent, or they are simply not followed. They will be working on this over the summer and plan on presenting it to the Senate at the August meeting.
          • Gen Ed & Assessment (D. Pratt)
            1. Pratt thanked the Senators for their votes earlier and acknowledged Gen Ed & Assessment and all of the subordinate committees for their hard work this year. We successfully revalidated the courses completely for Composition and for Natural Sciences.
          • Nominations, Elections, & Awards (Tony Elmendorf)
            1. Elmendorf said the meeting already had an extensive amount of time taken by their committee and passed the floor.
          • Student Affairs (Kenny Kincaid)
            1. Kincaid said they have a report to submit but refrained from reading due to time constraints. They said Student Affairs got three resolutions passed and Grade Appeals was very active. They pointed out that it is important that that Chair receive a quarter time release going forward. They also said, as a result of complaints from students, there should also be some type of deputy assist with a stipend. Students complained that they could not get their appeal submitted in a reasonable manner. The Student Affairs Committee received a lot of email from students that did not actually become part of a resolution. The committee has had frequent communication with Westville Warriors, who presented recommendations for going forward. One example was recognizing the need for different modalities allowing the flexibility of teaching on both campuses. They said there have been concerns with SGA and so have decided to look at their Bylaws to see if SAC can have a more structured relationship with SGA.
  1. Report from Westville Committee (V. Quinn or T. Sindone)
    • none
  2. Report from SGA (Dave Bolton)
    • Bolton introduced themselves as the newest SGA President, stating that Mason Cook had to step down. They said SGA has completed three dances including the Valentine’s Day Stoplight Dance and the Black History Month Bash, in which they raised money for student scholarships. SGA has also worked toward a higher level of gender and trans equity at the school by ensuring that feminine products are available in high traffic bathrooms and ensuring the inclusion of gender-neutral bathrooms in select areas on campus. They said in their new position as SGA President they aim to continue our growth and outreach and impact on both the Hammond and Westville campuses as well in the communities surrounding those campuses.
  3. Report from West Lafayette/IFC representative (V. Quinn or C. Morrow)
    • none
  4. Open discussion (as time permits).
    • Tony Sindone said the Senate needs to address at the next meeting the budgetary issues with respect to raises and promotions, whether or not it is a percentage or flat fee.
    • The Chair said the SoEC’s widespread violation of the Senate was offensive and needs to be addressed.
    • Diane Spoljoric thanked those who attended the opening of the time capsule on the Westville campus and invited submissions to refill the capsule which will be reopened in another 25 years.
    • The Chair reiterated his opening remarks, thanking the Senate and providing details of forthcoming Senate Leadership.
  5. Adjournment
    • Meeting adjourned at 12:40