member because that Board member will also be the person voting on the final candidate; therefore, in order to avoid "double voting," the Board member on the search committee is a non-voting member.

Regent Walston inquired whether Chair Patton had reviewed the previous presidential search committee structure prior to determining the composition of the proposed committee.

Regent Hatchett raised the question as to how other institutions, such as Morehead State University and the University of Louisville, are addressing the double vote idea. Chair Patton clarified the role and responsibilities of the search committee.

Regent Hatchett inquired whether Chair Patton was distinguishing the current presidential search from the interim search in which the entire Board was involved. Chair Patton replied that he was and distinguished the differences between the two presidential searches. Chair Patton clarified the duties of the currently proposed search committee, stating that the search committee would report to the Board, but the Board would have the ultimate authority and final say on the matter.

A robust discussion followed, regarding the number of Board members on the search committee and what their role and status would be in terms of voting or non-voting committee members.

Regent Briggs asked whether it was permissible to ask CPE's General Counsel, Mr. Travis Powell, for his legal perspective of having multiple Regents serve on both committees since he was present. Chair Patton denied the request, stating that the Board of Regents has its own legal counsel present to answer those questions.

Regent Walston requested that the Board move forward with the search committee composition as proposed, as the Board would make the ultimate determination in choosing the next President.

Regent Briggs asked that two individuals be included in each of the search committee categories, as was done in the last Presidential search. Chair Patton discussed the pros and cons of having two Board members on the committee.

Regent Moseley inquired why a Board member serving on the search committee would not have the ability to vote, even after fulfilling the extensive responsibilities and due diligence required of search committee members.

Regent Moseley also observed that as proposed, CPE would have representation on the committee but only as a non-voting member. Regent Dukes concurred with Regent Moseley's comments, remarking that CPE should have a voice in how the five semi-finalist candidates are selected.

A robust discussion followed pertaining to CPE's role on the search committee, during which Chair Patton requested that the status of CPE's role in the search committee as a voting member be tabled until additional information was gathered.

Ultimately, Chair Patton invited Mr. Travis Powell to address the Board to clarify CPE's involvement in the search process. Following Mr. Powell's remarks, Chair Patton asked Mr. Powell how he came to chair the previous search committee and whether he had been a voting member of that committee.