Chair Walston inquired into the status of the FY22 and FY23 audits.
Dr. Dailey and Dr. Wicker have been collaborating with Dr. Brogan, the new program coordinator, to redesign, refocus and reimagine the honors program. Proposed changes include increasing the cumulative GPA requirement, revising the mission and vision statements, and updating the core values statement, as well as qualifications/eligibility requirements. Dr. Wicker also recommended that the Board consider developing a dedicated budget for the Honors Collegium and stated that more details would be provided to the full Board at a later date.
Chair Walston asked where the program is currently housed.
Moving ahead, Dr. Wicker provided an update on the Advisory Council Charter development. He proposed the development of an Advisory Council Charter template, which will be used to establish advisory councils to support divisions, colleges, and schools. Dr. Wicker welcomed feedback on the template document.
Dr. Dailey and Dr. Wicker discussed faculty needs for Fall 2024 and Spring 2025, relative to MIP objective 4.12.1 and SACSCOC requirements.
Dr. Dailey noted that the University is still under the guidance of MIP and HB 250, so tenure and promotion is still paused. He also explained that resuming the process depends heavily upon having sustainable revenue coming in (as well as meeting other requirements of HB 250 and the MIP); therefore, reaching the goal of 3,000 students enrolled in the fall is critically important. A revised tenure and promotion policy is underway.
Chair Walston requested that Dr. Dailey continue to provide updates regarding the status of faculty tenure and promotion.
Dr. Dailey stated that the annual evaluation process is now a part of the expectations of KSU and is still part of the MIP. Deans are to have completed their review by April 5, and Dr. Dailey's final review will occur by April 20, 65-70% of the items are completed. Dr. Dailey expressed concern about inflation or heavy scoring.
Chair Walston inquired whether the faculty members would have an opportunity at each level of the evaluation process to clarify or respond to results of each particular section, and to discrepancies rising to the level of review by the Provost.