30
something they wish to continue or terminate. As demonstrated by the events discussed in Finding 9, it is important for the University to routinely review its policies to ensure good governance and reduce the risk that an outdated policy will resurface, and its application not be readdressed with the Board before it is used.
Another practice that was identified during the exam that was not found in HR policies, was the use of separation agreements by KSU. Agreements were used in association with voluntary separation incentive programs (VSIP), one approved by the Board in 2018, and another approved only by the former President in late calendar year 2020 as a cost savings measure. Additionally, the University entered into separation agreements to reduce the risk of subsequent legal action when select employees separated from the University. Each separation agreement, VSIP or otherwise, awarded individuals final earned compensation and then some amount of additional compensation beyond that earned. For example, recipients may have received an additional month to three months of compensation. The former General Counsel believed KSU’s HR policies referenced employees leaving the University need to give notice of “30 days or have an agreement.” Policies do address employees providing advanced notice of two to four weeks before they leave, but no language was identified as described by the former General Counsel regarding agreements.
Finally, in discussing HR policies, the HR Director noted there was no consistency in the previous administration when it came to salaries and things were not done within the parameters of the HR policies or in consultation with the HR Director. For example, the HR Director stated while watching the June 3, 2021, Board of Regents meeting she heard the former President advise the Board that her office had already reviewed or approved the employment letters presented to the Board for the Provost and SVP for Brand Identity and University Relations, when they had not. On June 4, 2021, the former President forwarded the two employment letters to the HR Director for her signature; however, the HR Director had not drafted these letters and refused to sign them. At the same time, the HR Director acknowledged that KSU’s salary schedules are outdated, noting that she believes they had not been updated since 2012. Human Resources industry standards identify, as a rule, that employers should examine the overall salary structure at least every three to five years. The HR Director did not believe that the Board establishes salary ranges; however, board bylaws identify that the Board “adopts guidelines for salary ranges and benefit guidelines for all faculty, administrative and University personnel.” As such, this falls under the responsibility of the Board to address.
According to KSU’s former General Counsel, the former Board Chair regularly stated that KSU does not have policies, but the problem was not that they did not have policies. The problem was KSU had several manuals and when changes were authorized by the Board, an individual policy would get updated but not in the overall handbook. Additionally, when the Board approved individual policies, these new or revised policies were not consistently communicated to university staff. For example, the Board approved new per diem amounts but staff working with travel expenditures were not advised of the change. Communicating policy and policy changes to employees is just as vital as establishing the policies. Policies are only effective in managing financial controls if they are known and understood by the employees responsible for the work.