Good morning, everyone! This update regarding the February 22 Board meeting is a little on the late side, so my apologies.
I'm sure that you've heard by now that the Board voted to approve keeping the process confidential through the finalist stage, unless all finalists agree for that final stage to be open to the public. (At the “final stage,” the Search Committee will have sent the Board a short, unordered list of the top three to five candidates.) In addition, the Board voted to bring one preferred presidential candidate to campus for a visit, prior to executing the final contract.
So, what this means is that the Search Cmte will send the Board three to five names that they think are the best. The Board then interacts with these three to five individuals, and if all of them agree that the process be opened up, it will be. If even one finalist prefers the process remain closed, then the process will remain closed for all finalists. The search firm (Greenwood/Asher) has said repeatedly that an open process will limit the candidate pool, both in terms of diversity and overall quality. There is information to support both open and closed processes, but I am unwilling to risk a vibrant, diverse pool, so I voted in favor of allowing the finalists to determine the level of openness.
I am pleased that the Board has voted to require the preferred candidate to make a campus visit. I do wish the entire process could be more open, but I think this is a reasonable compromise.
The Board’s University Relations Committee approved the submission of changes to Governing Regulations II, to include information about the process for appearing before the Board. Therefore, the Board had a first reading during the February meeting, and the second reading will occur in March. I am very pleased with how the revision process has occurred (input from many, many people, including Board members) and I think the revised language is clear and concise. (The language can be found via the link below, under the heading of “University Relations Committee Report.”)
There were a variety of other items discussed during the Board meeting, and you may find information about those items here: http://www.uky.edu/Trustees/agendas/2011agen.htm.
Regarding the search for a new president – I currently have no idea how the interviews, etc. will be run after the names of finalists are given to the Board. J On the other hand, I am fairly confident that I will have an opportunity to ask a few questions of the candidates, and I would like YOUR input! If you have issues/concerns that you think the presidential candidates should be aware of, please email me and let me know what you are thinking. I have found that input from YOU (and particularly from the Staff Senate’s Staff Trustee Advisory Committee) really helps me understand issues facing UK staff, and helps me see things from different perspectives.
I continue to enjoy serving as your representative to the Board, and I urge you to contact me with your comments /concerns /complaints. As always, please feel free to contact me via email (email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org) or through comments left here.