November 21st 2025
ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
November 21st, 2025
Reynolds 222
Attendees: Audrey Folsom, John Hershberger, Julie King, Rashele Wade, Jason Causey, John Howard, Suzanne Melescue, Anne McGee, Bert Greenwalt, Dwayne Powell, Pradeep Mishra, Stephanie Hoeckley, Rob Williams, Karen Graham, Banafsheh Aghayeebianeh, Kristen Sumler, Richard Segall, Veronika Scudamore, Hao Yang Teng, Guolei Zhou, Eric Dry, Kim Vickrey, Jamie Pasmore, Scott Mangan, Robert Bradley, Eric West, Savannah Cormier,
Toccara Carter, Mark Lewis, Ibrahim Duyar
Proxy Attendees: John Hershberger for Amanda Mohler, John Howard for LTC J. Matt Weeks
Guests: Kevin Hennings (parliamentarian), Will McLean, Alyssa Wells, Travis Marsico
Absentees: Khem Aryal, Marceline Thompson-Hayes, Kacie Altom, Alexandr Sokolov, Donna Caldwell, Rollin Tusalem, Gary Edwards, DayDay Robinson
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by John Hershberger
Order of the Day: Motion to approve the order of the day by Julie King, seconded by Rob Williams; all are in favor, the motion carried.
Approval of Minutes: The motion to approve the November 7th, 2025 meeting minutes by Richard Segall, seconded by Eric West, all are in favor, and the motion carried.
New Business
Will McLean (Q&A)
- At the University PRT committee meeting, it was brought to everyone’s attention that faculty are evaluated on the department and college criteria in place during their 3rd -year review. However, many faculty were under the impression that they were evaluated on the PRT criteria that were in place during their first year. According to the faculty handbook on page 59, “Pre-tenured faculty will be evaluated for tenure and promotion based on the department, college, and university criteria in place during their third year of employment on a pre-tenure appointment.” This statement can be interpreted both ways. Some faculty members interpret this statement as meaning they will be evaluated during their third year, according to the criteria that have been put in place for them. While other faculty interpret this statement that they will be evaluated during their third year based on the current PRT document. It would seem unfair to evaluate faculty on criteria that may change halfway to tenure and promotion. Can you clarify what PRT guidelines are faculty evaluated on during their third-year review?
The document you start with in the first year is the one you are being held accountable to in the third-year review. The provost will give the most liberal interpretation for the faculty, using the most flexibility. The language should be updated for clarity. The majority of the campus is operating with the lens of using the document from the first year. It is important that you meet with your department and college PRT committees, so that you are clear about the process.
Mark Lewis makes a motion to update the language of the PRT section through SGOC. Motion seconded and passed.
Will said this is the smoothest semester since the Provost started. Course Dog is launched to maximize space use across campus. The new website has been launched (it will take time to get it all right, be patient). Many changes have happened this semester.
Travis Marsico, Vice Provost for Research, Innovation, and Discovery & Executive Director of the Arkansas Biosciences Institute, FRAC Proposal
FRAC is an internal awards process for research funds. The FRAC proposal seeks one representative per college, except UC. The review process has been improved.
The traditional FRAC award is for up to 20,000 for one year, the Provost Award is for up to 60,000 for 2 years. Plus, there are many more smaller awards available in the FRAC portal, including travel awards. The application review workload is better distributed now. The FRAC committee also handles sabbatical leave awards.
Feedback is given to improve the proposals so that we get more competitive proposals for funding, including external funding.
With the increased funding for research, the committee wants the process to be the smoothest and most efficient it can be, with members who are knowledgeable about research and represent the type of research being done across campus.
Travis talked about how the committee functions throughout the academic year.
FRAC@astate.edu is the email for any questions.
Karen Graham motions for the Faculty Senate to support this proposal, seconded by Julie King. Discussion: Modify the sentence about confirming the appointments. The decision should be at the college level. The committee appointment process should be clarified on the proposal.
John is moving to amend the motion so that we can do a modification of the proposal, Julie seconds. All in favor of the modification of the document.
John Hershberger, Equity Proposal
Amendment to 2.a.i. proposed by John, seconded by Eric Dry:
- Address the salary compression issue (to minimize salary compression by raising existing salaries)
- Minimize bias (implicit or explicit) in the decision-making process.
All in favor of the amendment.
John made a motion to pass the document as amended: Kim Vickrey seconded. All in favor, motion passes.
University Learning Outcomes Proposal
Must be voted on within 21 days. So, we may need to meet on December 5th or do an email vote.
This is an update from the 2017 version. This addresses some semantic issues and aligns it to the current university’s mission.
Would it cause some issues with the assessment measures? Could we keep items III and IV in the same order as the 2017 version so that the alignment of the program learning objectives across campus don’t have to be recoded? Kevin Hennings stated that this would not be an issue and that the ULO could be edited to flip items III and IV.
Motion to table it until December 5th due to needing time for dissemination and review, by John Hershberger, Eric Dry seconded. Motion passed. This would be the only item that needs to be addressed at that time so we can do email feedback and a Qualtrics vote.
Old business
Committee Reports
None
4:12 pm adjournment by John Hershberger.
Minutes recorded by Audrey Folsom