Faculty Senate Minutes, December 12, 2025

Faculty Senate, December 12, 2025

10:00 AM-12:00 PM: Hammond – LAWSHE 131

Minutes

Voting Members Present:
Khair Al Shamaileh, Lee Artz, Gokarna Aryal, Matthew Bauman, Shreya Bhandari, Frank Colucci, Jim Dolen, John Durocher, Rob Hallock, Maria Hughes, Shontrai Irving, Jessica Ivy, Patrick Keegan, Hansung Kim, Tae-Hoon Kim, Kenny Kincaid, Dave Kozel, Robert Kramer, Yun Liu, Patti Ludwig-Beymer, Claudia Mich, Colette Morrow, Hassan Naji, Laurie Parpart, Sheila Rezak, Pam Saylor, Diane Spoljoric, George Stefanik, Nicolae Tarfulea, Kathy Tobin, Melanie Walski, Sarah White, Donna Whitten, Cheng Zhang, Hairong Zhao

Voting Members Absent:
Ali Alavizadeh, Geoffrey Barrow, Masoud Fathizadeh,

Non-Voting Members Present:
Tony Elmendorf, Alan McCafferty, Joe Coates

Others Present:
Marie Mora

1. Determination of quorum.
   • Quorum determined at 10:01 AM
2. Call to order.
   • Meeting called to order at 10:03 AM
3. Approval of the agenda.
   • Motioned for approval by R. Hallock
   • Seconded by S. Rezak
   • Approved by voice vote
4. Approval of the minutes from November 14, 2025
   • Amendments
     1. Correcting the record to state that students would be coming in during the fall 2026 semester, not 2025.
     2. Clarifying a detail about the social worker program.
   • Motioned for approval by S. Rezak
   • Seconded by R. Hallock
   • Approved with amendments by voice vote
5. Remarks by the Senate Chair
   • The Chair opened his remarks by reminding everyone that semester grades were due at 5 pm on Monday due to this year’s calendar. He emphasized the importance of faculty input on the Post-Tenure Review process, explaining that, as a result of faculty feedback, a new committee review step was added for some instances. Kozel apologized for the circulation of multiple and changing versions of relevant documents but encouraged further input and discussion from faculty, describing the process as ongoing and collaborative.

He explained that the review document from Faculty Affairs and the one from the Provost differed. He urged senators to participate in the conversation, noting the living nature of the document and the need for continued input. Kozel also provided an update on a parallel process—a task force being formed to examine and compare how different colleges implement their rubrics for learning, discovery, and engagement —to ensure fairness and transparency.

• The Chair brought attention to changes in general education requirements, notably the addition of information literacy and interdisciplinary credits and the removal of the First Year Experience requirement. He encouraged open discussion of the proposal and stressed the significance of the changes to all programs and students.
• He mentioned the ongoing work of a university task force on academic structure—noting its purpose is for long-term planning and engagement rather than immediate change.
• Kozel closed his remarks by recognizing retiring Senator Kathy Tobin, thanking her for her years of service.

6. Remarks by the Chancellor
   • Chancellor Holford was unable to attend the meeting, as he was at the Board of Trustees meeting in West Lafayette.
7. Remarks by the Provost/VCAA
   • Provost Mora thanked the Senate and explained that the Chancellor was absent because he was attending a Board of Trustees meeting to request approval for the next phase of the Roberts Impact Lab, noting its significance for faculty and student research. She acknowledged faculty involvement in the planning of the lab.
   • The Provost updated attendees on the College of Business dean search, noting three excellent finalists and that an announcement would be made, hopefully in January after the holidays, and gave Senator C. Mich an acknowledgement for representing the Faculty Senate on the search committee.
   • She highlighted the open call for sabbatical proposals, with a deadline of January 9, and invited faculty to an informational Zoom meeting.
   • Provost Mora addressed budget challenges, reporting that the state would withhold an additional 5% of appropriations (about $2.6 million), on top of a previous 5% cut, but said the university was managing the reductions through savings in travel, timing of positions, and other strategies. She highlighted recent enrollment increases and higher retention rates, which have helped offset budget impacts.
   • She shared positive news that external research awards since July 1 are now at a total of $8.16 million. The Provost lauded significant research grants, including $3 million in continued Department of Defense funding for cybersecurity, and celebrated a faculty member’s recognition for a new patent. Mora noted improvements in student retention, decreased course withdrawals, and increased use of the Testing Center.
   • Turning to faculty processes, she praised the collaborative work on the evolving post-tenure review document as a strong example of shared governance. She closed by expressing gratitude for full attendance, wishing the faculty well for the busy season, and extending holiday wishes on behalf of herself and the Chancellor.
     1. Durocher asked if slides from the afternoon’s sabbatical information session would be available for those unable to attend. Provost Mora assured him and others that the information would be distributed.
     2. Naji asked about the status of the RISE logo contest. Provost Mora explained that 17 submissions were received, the finalists had been narrowed to two after review and requested tweaks, and the announcement was expected soon.
     3. Kincaid requested an update on the syllabus management vendor. Provost Mora stated that the committee had narrowed the vendor list with input from faculty across campuses, and an announcement was expected early in the spring semester.

8. SGA Report (Molly Bowler)
   • No report.
9. Unfinished Business
   • Restructuring Taskforce
     1. Chair Kozel explained the task force’s purpose is to explore options for possible future academic reorganization—not to implement changes, but to gather broad feedback for long-term planning. The intent is to learn from both internal and external models, and have input ready should change ever be necessary.
     2. The group emphasized the importance of early, campus-wide, grassroots input. The committee would reach out to faculty, staff, students, and administrators across colleges to identify which structures work and which do not for their departments and colleges.
     3. There was substantial discussion about the composition of the task force. Suggestions included proportional college representation, especially since some colleges are much larger than others, as well as adding staff and advising representatives to ensure that the perspectives of all affected groups are considered.
     4. Provost Mora voiced her support for a collaborative, stakeholder-informed process, reiterating the goal to operationalize prior senate-approved policy and ensure broad, informed input before recommendations are made.
     5. It was agreed that the process should prioritize student impact and work toward the most effective and inclusive academic structure, considering both institutional and stakeholder needs.
     6. The size and balance of the task force were debated, with caution against both overburdening members and making the group too large to function efficiently. Flexibility in representation was encouraged.
     7. Members highlighted the value of examining models from other universities but emphasized the unique needs of their own institution.
     8. Saylor asked about representation from Ed Policy. Ed Policy is not listed in the document, but should be added.
     9. Elmendorf said impact on students should be the primary consideration.

10. New Business:
    • Curriculum Documents Approval (Curriculog login)
      1. 24 documents up for approval
      2. Program revisions must be submitted to Curriculog by Jan 16.
      3. Zhang motioned to postpone the approval of COM 310100 until further discussion by the affected departments has taken place.
         1. Seconded by L. Artz
         2. Approved by voice vote
      4. Tarfulea motioned to postpone approval of the BSB.
         1. Seconded by G. Aryal.
         2. Approved by voice vote
      5. Motion for approval of the remaining 22 documents by L. Artz
      6. Seconded by H. Kim
      7. Approved by voice vote

11. For Action:
    • FSD 25-07 Resolution on Process and Procedures for Performance Review of Tenured Faculty
      1. Hallock explained that the new PTR process incorporated considerable faculty feedback, especially on the need for meaningful faculty input in cases where post-tenure review findings are below satisfactory. A faculty review panel was added to ensure peer input in such situations while managing faculty workload.
      2. The Provost and Chair clarified that, while faculty input is highly valued and much of it has been integrated, the document remains a “living” process subject to ongoing revision. Faculty Affairs and the Provost’s office had circulated multiple versions, leading to some confusion about which was current.
      3. There was extensive discussion on:
         1. How the PTR process aligns with the criteria for promotion and annual review.
         2. Concerns about academic freedom under new state-mandated review requirements.
         3. Equity in review outcomes, especially regarding merit raises, probation, and weighted categories.
         4. The need for consistency between post-tenure review documentation and promotional pathways.
         5. Whether and how “outstanding” or “meeting expectations” should be defined and linked to outcomes.
      4. Faculty raised questions about what triggers a performance improvement plan or probation, how the new process interacts with established West Lafayette procedures for dismissal, and whether failing PTR could lead to dismissal for cause.
      5. Some noted national trends, such as incentive measures elsewhere for passing post-tenure review (e.g., Florida), and concerns over potential political or ideological threats to academic freedom.
      6. Implementation issues included the importance of aligning college and department rubrics with the PTR framework, avoiding administrative overload, and ensuring one unified documentation process for both annual and post-tenure reviews.
      7. There was discussion about the timeline and transparency for rubric development, with the consensus being that the current review would be based on previously established expectations, and new rubrics would be developed for future cycles.
      8. Concerns surfaced over different colleges’ approaches—some had already begun collaborative rubric drafting, while others had not.
      9. A vote was called, but there was some reluctance to approve without seeing the whole picture (including associated rubrics); some faculty preferred delaying approval until further discussion.
      10. The Provost stated the process would move forward regardless of the vote to ensure compliance and continued development, but feedback would still be considered.
      11. The document was eventually put to a vote, with approval not unanimous—opposing and abstaining votes were taken.
          1. Motioned for approval by R. Hallock
          2. Seconded by K. Tobin
          3. Approved by voice vote

• FSD 25-02 General Education Course Removal
  1. The discussion on FSD 25-02 centered on approving the removal of specific courses from general education categories—not from the catalog entirely, but from particular Gen Ed areas. K. Tobin introduced the motion and clarified that this was a routine update, affecting only the categorization of courses.
  2. Faculty raised questions about how these changes would impact current programs and students. In particular, Diane Spoljoric asked whether Gen Ed course lists available for advising would be updated promptly. Kathy assured the group that, as with past removals, the registrar would be consulted to ensure lists remain current and that students would continue to have adequate choices across affected categories.
  3. It was also confirmed that courses like BSM 101 could be reapplied for approval in other Gen Ed categories in the future. Motioned for approval by K. Tobin
  4. Seconded by R. Hallock
  5. Approved by a show of hands
• FSD 25-04 Purdue University Northwest General Education Requirements
  1. Tobin introduced proposed changes, highlighting the plan to add a new category combining information literacy and interdisciplinary ways of knowing, with the removal of the First Year Experience requirement. The effective date was set for fall 2027, giving programs time to adapt.
  2. A key point of debate was the credit value for the new category. Several faculty argued for allowing the category to be 1–3 credits rather than requiring three credits to provide flexibility for programs with tightly structured curricula or to facilitate the inclusion of condensed experiences, such as a revamped first-year course.
  3. Chair Kozel proposed, and the Senate agreed, to amend the document so this category would permit 1–3 credits, giving departments more options for implementation.
  4. There was also discussion about clarifying that courses proposed for Gen Ed need not match every listed learning outcome in a category, but should align with the broader spirit and intent of that area.
  5. Questions were raised about assessment logistics, how the new requirements would fit for programs already heavily loaded with credits (e.g., engineering), and maintaining a student-friendly process for updates to Gen Ed lists.
  6. The amendment and the overall document, as revised, were approved. It was agreed that departments must now work to propose and populate new courses to fulfill the information literacy/interdisciplinary category ahead of the 2027 effective date.
  7. Motioned for approval by K. Tobin
  8. Seconded by R. Hallock
  9. Approved by voice vote

12. Discussion Items:
    • FSD 23-11 REV Guidance on the use of AI in teaching and learning
      1. Saylor presented the revisions, explaining that they were intended to align PNW’s policy with recommendations from the Center for Faculty Excellence and include recent updates to the PNW Code of Conduct on plagiarism.
      2. The revised document offers instructors guidance on addressing AI tools in their syllabi, includes clear links to resource policies, model syllabus language, and institutional definitions of academic integrity.
      3. Discussion noted that tracked changes in the document (highlighted in red) clearly show all updates for easy review.
      4. Several faculty appreciated that the document centralizes relevant policies and offers concrete hyperlinks instructors can quickly reference.
      5. A comment was made that Purdue West Lafayette is also currently revising their AI guidelines, signaling a need to remain adaptive.
      6. Technical process notes: the document will receive a new policy number for tracking and historical reference.

13. Reports from Senate Standing Committee Chairs
    • Curriculum (Lee Artz)
      1. Artz stated that the committee had 35 proposals to review at its upcoming meeting. The meeting would take place in Library room 262, and he confirmed with Alan the room’s technical setup, noting the availability of a computer for their needs. No further issues or concerns were reported.
    • Faculty Affairs (Rob Hallock)
      1. Hallock expressed gratitude for the substantial time devoted earlier in the meeting to discussing the Post-Tenure Review policy. He added that he appreciated the new meeting room setup, finding it more comfortable and conducive to discussion.
    • Gen Ed & Assessment (Kathy Tobin)
      1. Tobin shared that several new documents had been proposed—specifically, 100-level Computer Science courses intended for the technology category. She emphasized that these are ideal types of courses for general education requirements.
      2. Tobin expressed her appreciation for the Senate’s collaboration and engagement throughout her tenure, describing the work as important and collaborative.
    • Nominations, Elections, & Awards (John Durocher)
      1. Several new members volunteered to join the ad hoc Interfolio committee, with representation expanding across colleges and the library.
      2. Durocher reminded the Senate about the Founders Day awards nomination deadline (January 9 at 5 pm) and reported current nomination numbers in each award category (teaching, engagement, scholarship).
      3. Committee chairs for the various award review groups were confirmed, and Durocher is working to ensure all college representatives are correctly assigned, following up with deans as needed.
      4. There was a brief clarification about the nomination process: letters from nominators would follow the initial form submissions.
      5. Both Durocher and Provost Mora encouraged faculty to nominate deserving colleagues for these awards, highlighting the importance of recognizing faculty achievements.
    • Ed Policy (Pam Saylor)
      1. Saylor stated that the committee would be discussing the foundational Task Force—particularly its membership and outreach strategy. She planned to coordinate efforts with John Durocher to reach out to prospective members and also to consult with the Provost to incorporate any needed administrative perspectives.
    • Student Affairs (James Dolen)
      1. Dolen announced that there were no active cases in the grade appeals or academic integrity process, attributing this to effective faculty-student resolution practices.
      2. He recognized an electrical engineering major as the Student of the Month, with the next award to be given in February.
      3. Dolen also noted a productive recent meeting with the new dean of students and ongoing efforts to streamline the appeals and integrity process further. The committee planned a brief follow-up meeting to discuss continued process improvements.

14. West Lafayette Report (Joe Coates)
    • Coates noted ongoing discussions about changes in prescription drug and benefits for staff. He highlighted major topics from university leadership, including the rapid impact of AI on curriculum and workforce readiness, with a focus on preparing students graduating in 2030. There was mention of updates to AI usage policies, particularly the inconsistency in how courses permit or prohibit AI use. Additional items included plans for an external advisory board to align curriculum with employer needs and a bylaw revision for equity, diversity, and inclusion (with attention to the possible removal of cultural centers). Joe also shared that some topics—like student parking—remain perennial concerns.
15. IFC Report (Geoffrey Barrow)
    • At the latest IFC meeting, representatives from PFW, PNW, and PWL shared updates on campus challenges and initiatives. PFW faces significant under-enrollment and budget cuts, resulting in layoffs and reduced programs, prompting calls for a system-wide acceptance and redirection process to better utilize regional capacity. PNW reported ongoing work on post-tenure review, the establishment of a new Quantum Commercialization Center, and the construction of a new dorm, while also expressing solidarity with PFW regarding the loss of student athletic programs. PWL discussed ongoing challenges with the new pharmacy benefits plan, lab space limitations in Indianapolis, efforts to streamline governance, revisions to promotion and tenure processes, and changes to leadership roles. The group also discussed preparations and funding for Purdue’s hosting of the Big Ten Academic Alliance meeting in 2026.
16. Open discussion (as time permits)
    • In the Open Discussion before adjournment, faculty exchanged concerns about upcoming campus technology and security changes, notably the shift to Microsoft Authenticator for account security and the elimination of hardware fobs and campus landlines. Several members voiced concerns about the reliability of cell coverage in classrooms, potential safety implications, and the burden of out-of-pocket costs for necessary security devices. Additional safety issues included the ability to lock classroom doors quickly in emergencies and the adequacy of emergency alert communications; some cited confusion during a recent false alarm and bomb scare, indicating a need for more precise, more building-specific instructions. The group suggested practical solutions, such as contacting campus facilities to ensure doors lock from the inside, and called for improved alert systems. The Provost’s office expressed commitment to addressing these operational and communication issues. The meeting ended with good wishes for the winter break and appreciation of faculty collaboration on safety matters.
17. Adjournment
    • Meeting adjourned at 12:13 PM