Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY MISSION STATEMENT

Kentucky State University is a public, comprehensive, historically black land-grant university committed to advancing the Commonwealth of Kentucky, enhancing society, and impacting individuals by providing quality teaching with a foundation in liberal studies, scholarly research, and public service to enable productive lives within the diverse global economy.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY VISION STATEMENT

Kentucky State University prepares today's students as global citizens, lifelong learners and problem solvers. To accomplish this, Kentucky State University must challenge itself and its students to be the best. It must recognize its strengths, expand and excel. Notwithstanding, it must also welcome change and quality improvement. By doing so, KSU will gain widespread recognition as one of the region's strongest universities. As a university of distinction, Kentucky State University will create an environment where:

I Students are first.

I Diversity is valued, understood and respected.

I Diverse, motivated and talented students, staff and faculty are actively recruited and retained.

An intellectual environment conducive to leadership in teaching, research and community service is encouraged and supported.

Effective teaching is promoted both inside and outside the classroom.

I Students are taught how to obtain, evaluate and use information.

I Learning is lifelong.

I Effective and efficient fiscal management by the administration is the norm.

I Collegiality is the norm, not the exception.

I Each person is a change agent.

I Excellence starts with me.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY CORE VALUES

Through the core values, we- the faculty, staff, administration and students of Kentucky State University – communicate to all our stakeholders and constituents the way in which we choose to do business. The following values that we hold are essential to achieving the University's mission:

Student Centered Philosophy

In everything we do, our students come first. We strive to create an environment that values the unique backgrounds, perspectives and talents of all our students and provide them with the academic, leadership and social tools to help them grow as responsible, knowledgeable and creative global citizens. We encourage attitudes and behaviors that lead to a desire to learn, a commitment to goals and respect for the dignity of others. Ultimately, we encourage attitudes and behaviors that build success.

Excellence and Innovation

We believe in student’s potential to learn and to connect what they learn inside and outside the classroom to solving problems for productive changes. We strive to offer excellent academic programs; to encourage exploration and discovery through providing outstanding instruction, technology and facilities; and to ignite a curiosity toward the world and a passion for lifelong learning. We seek to reward the pursuit and achievement of excellence and innovation in an environment where freedom of thought and expression are valued. We want all members of our campus community to leave a mark through their creativity, curiosity, discovery, exploration and ingenuity.

Ethical Conduct

We encourage the sharing of information in an open and responsible manner while maintaining the highest ethical and moral standards. The standards are reflected in our commitment to accountability and to personal responsibility for our choices and actions. We encourage respect for the dignity, diversity and right of individuals. We welcome all students who commit themselves to learning, knowing that students and faculty with diverse perspective enhance our classroom experience.

Social Responsibility

We share responsibility for each other and are committed to providing opportunities for the participation in the economic, political and cultural life of our local, state, regional, national and global communities. We are sensitive to our surrounding community; therefore, we recognize the value of integrating classroom learning with the community experience. Our commitment is to provide leadership and to establish partnerships for addressing community and workforce needs and to make a positive difference in the city of Frankfort, the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the world.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Dr. M. Christopher Brown II Eighteenth President

Dr. Lucian Yates III Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Mr. Douglas R. Allen II Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration / CFO

Ms. Clara Ross Stamps Senior Vice President for Brand Identity and University Relations

Vacant Vice President for Institutional Advancement

Dr. Derek F. Greenfield Vice President for Student Engagement and Campus Life

Ms. Lisa K. Lang General Counsel and Records Custodian

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD MEMBERS

Mr. Ron Banks (2023) Ms. Mindy Barfield, Esq. (2021) Ms. Kierra Donald (2020), Student Regent Dr. Elaine Farris (2020), Chairperson Ms. Chandee Felder, (2020), Staff Regent Mr. Paul C. Harnice, Esq. (2022) Dr. Melanie House-Mansfield (2025) Mr. Dalton Jantzen, MS (2022) Dr. Joe Moffett (2020), Faculty Regent Dr. Syamala H.K. Reddy (2021) Mr. Roger Reynolds (2024)

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY ELECTED BOARD OFFICERS

Dr. Elaine Farris, Chairperson Mr. Dalton Jantzen, Vice Chairperson Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Secretary Douglas R. Allen II, Treasurer

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD COMMITTEES

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS Regent Dalton Jantzen, Chair Regent Mindy Barfield Regent Kierra Donald Regent Elaine Farris Regent Joe Moffett Regent Roger Reynolds

BRAND IDENTITY

AND UNIVERSITY RELATIONS Regent Roger Reynolds, Chair Regent Ron Banks Regent Elaine Farris Regent Melanie House-Mansfield Regent Dalton Jantzen Regent Joe Moffett STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND SUCCESS Regent Elaine Farris, Chair Regent Ron Banks Regent Kierra Donald Regent Chandee Felder Regent Paul Harnice Regent Dalton Jantzen

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT

REGENT RON BANKS, CHAIR Regent Elaine Farris REGENT Chandee Felder REGENT PAUL HARNICE REGENT Syamala Reddy REGENT ROGER REYNOLDS

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION Regent Mindy Barfield, Chair Regent Elaine Farris Regent Paul Harnice Regent Melanie House-Mansfield Regent Dalton Jantzen Regent Roger Reynolds

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND SUCCESS Regent Elaine Farris, Chair Regent Ron Banks Regent Kierra Donald Regent Chandee Felder Regent Paul Harnice Regent Dalton Jantzen

GOVERNANCE Regent Paul Harnice, Chair Regent Mindy Barfield Regent Elaine Farris Regent Chandee Felder Regent Syamala Reddy Regent Roger Reynolds

EXECUTIVE Regent Elaine Farris, Chair Regent Ron Banks Regent Mindy Barfield Regent Paul Harnice Regent Dalton Jantzen Regent Roger Reynolds

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Regents

Thursday, December 5, 2019, 1:00 p.m. Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AGENDA

1. Call to Order
2. Regent Elaine Farris, Chair, Board of Regents
2. Roll Call
3. President M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary
3. Regent Elaine Farris
3. Adoption of the Agenda
4. Opening Remarks Regent Elaine Farris
5. Approval of Minutes *Minutes of the September 4 & 5, 2019 Annual Retreat of the Board of Regents *Minutes of the September 5, 2019 Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Regents *Minutes of the November 7, 2019 Special Called Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board of Regents
6. Bred of the Quarter Recognition
7. Regent Elaine Farris President M. Christopher Brown II
7. Campus Stakeholder Presentations (3 minutes each)
8. A.Faculty Senate Updates
9. B.Staff Senate Updates
10. C.Student Government Updates
11. Dr. Helen Smith Ms. Jasmin Thurman Regent Kierra Donald
8. President's Quarterly Report a. Special Guest Presentation
8. President’s Quarterly Report
9. A.Update on Strategic Planning

President M. Christopher Brown II Mr. Daryl Love Dr. Beverly Schneller

9. Consent Agenda Regent Elaine Farris
10. a.Approval of ADP Contract Extension
11. b.Approval of APAX Software Personal Service Contract
12. c.Approval of Concur Contract
13. d.Approval of Resolution to Confer Earned Academic Degrees – Fall 2019
14. e.Approval of Resolution to Confer Earned Academic Degrees – Summer 2019
15. f.Approval of Touch Net Contract Extension
10. Board Recess for Committees Regent Elaine Farris
11. Board Committee Meetings Respective Chairpersons
12. Board Reconvening from Committees Regent Elaine Farris
13. Approval of Committee Actions and Regents Elaine Farris Reports
14. Closed Session
15. A.Pending Litigation (KRS 61.810 (1)(c))
16. B.Individual Personnel Matters (KRS 61.810 (1)(f))
17. Regent Elaine Farris
15. Public Action(s)
16. A.Approval of 2019 Presidential Performance Review Results
17. B.Approval of 2019 Presidential Performance Rubric
18. C.Approval of 2020 Presidential Performance Objectives
19. D.Approval of Action Items moved from Consent Agenda
20. E.Approval of Internal Auditor
21. F.Approval of Legal Action(s) or Settlement(s)
16. Closing Remarks
17. Regent Elaine Farris
17. Adjournment

Regent Elaine Farris

Kentucky State University Board of Regents 2019 Quarterly Meeting Dates March 5-6, 2020 June 4-5, 2020 September 3-4, 2020 December 3-4, 2020

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Academic Affairs Committee

Thursday, December 5, 2019, 1:00 p.m. Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AGENDA

1. Call to Order
2. Regent Dalton Jantzen, Chair
2. Roll Call
3. Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary
3. Adoption of the Agenda
4. Regent Dalton Jantzen
4. Agenda Item(s)
5. A.Action Item(s)
6. a.Approval of Honorary Degree Candidate(s)
7. B.Information Item(s)
8. a.Academic Program Accreditation Initiative Update
9. b.Academic Year 2019 Grades Report Update
10. c.Faculty Instructional Loads Report Update
11. d.Fall 2019 Midterm Grades Update
12. e.Military Education Benefits Update
13. f.Report on Online Classes, Education, and Programs
14. g.Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Update
15. h.Students' Major and Degree Production Update
5. Adjournment

Regent Dalton Jantzen

MEMBERS

MEMBERS Regent Dalton Jantzen, Chair Regent Mindy Barfield, Regent Kierra Donald, Regent Elaine Farris, Regent Joe Moffett, Regent Roger Reynolds

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Brand Identity and University Relations Committee

Thursday, December 5, 2019 (Following the Academic Affairs Committee Meeting) Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AGENDA

1. Call to Order
2. Regent Roger Reynolds, Chair
2. Roll Call
3. Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary
3. Adoption of the Agenda
4. Regent Roger Reynolds
4. Agenda Item(s)
5. A.Action Item(s)
6. a.NONE
7. B.Information Item(s)
8. a.Quarterly Media and Brand Identity Report
5. Adjournment

Regent Roger Reynolds

MEMBERS Regent Roger Reynolds, Chair Regent Ron Banks, Regent Elaine Farris, Regent Melanie House-Mansfield, Regent Dalton Jantzen, Regent Joe Moffett

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee

Thursday, December 5, 2019 (Following the Brand Identity and University Relations Committee Meeting) Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AGENDA

1. Call to Order
2. Regent Mindy Barfield, Chair
2. Roll Call
3. Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary
3. Adoption of the Agenda
4. Regent Mindy Barfield
4. Agenda Item(s)
5. Agenda Item(s)
6. A.Action Item(s)
7. a.Approval of FY2019 Audit
8. b.Approval of Orientation Fee Increase
9. B.Information Item(s)
10. a.Faculty Salary Survey Update
11. b.Quarterly Budget Update
12. c.Quarterly Facilities Update
13. d.Student ID Cards Update
5. Adjournment

Regent Mindy Barfield

MEMBERS

Regent Mindy Barfield, Chair

Regent Elaine Farris, Regent Paul Harnice, Regent Melanie House-Mansfield, Regent Dalton Jantzen, Regent Roger Reynolds

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Governance Committee

Thursday, December 5, 2019 (Following the Finance and Administration Committee Meeting) Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AGENDA

1. Call to Order
2. Regent Paul Harnice, Chair
2. Roll Call
3. Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary
3. Adoption of the Agenda
4. Regent Paul Harnice
4. Agenda Item(s)
5. A.Action Item(s)
6. a.Approval of 2020 Legislative Agenda
7. b.Approval of The Gold Book Revisions
8. B.Information Item(s)
9. a.Federal Legislative Update
10. b.Review of Annual Board Self-Evaluation
5. Adjournment

Regent Paul Harnice

MEMBERS Regent Paul Harnice, Chair Regent Mindy Barfield, Regent Elaine Farris, Regent Chandee Felder, Regent Syamala Reddy, Regent Roger Reynolds

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Institutional Advancement Committee

Thursday, December 5, 2019 (Following the Governance Committee Meeting) Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AGENDA

1. Call to Order
2. Regent Ron Banks, Chair
2. Roll Call
3. Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary
3. Adoption of the Agenda
4. Regent Ron Banks
4. Agenda Item(s)
5. A.Action Item(s)
6. a.Approval of the Gift Acceptance Policy
7. b.Approval of the Naming or Renaming University Buildings, Spaces, Programs, and Positions Policy
8. B.Information Item(s)
9. a.ARGI Mid-Year Endowment Performance Report
10. b.Bourbon on the Banks Partnership Update
5. Adjournment

Regent Ron Banks

MEMBERS Regent Ron Banks, Chair Regent Elaine Farris, Regent Chandee Felder, Regent Paul Harnice, Regent Syamala Reddy, Regent Roger Reynolds

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Student Engagement and Campus Life Committee

Thursday, December 5, 2019 (Following the Institutional Advancement Committee Meeting) Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

AGENDA

1. Call to Order
2. Regent Elaine Farris, Chair
2. Roll Call
3. Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary
3. Adoption of the Agenda
4. Regent Elaine Farris
4. Agenda Item(s)
5. A.Action Item(s)
6. a.Authorization to Name the Renovated Exum Weight Room
7. B.Information Item(s)
8. a.Student Engagement and Campus Life Strategic Plan Update
5. Adjournment

Regent Elaine Farris

MEMBERS Regent Elaine Farris, Chair Regent Ron Banks, Regent Kierra Donald, Regent Chandee Felder, Regent Paul Harnice, Regent Dalton Jantzen

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Annual Retreat of the Board of Regents

Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 10:00 a.m. The Kentucky Castle 230 Pisgah Pike Versailles, Kentucky 40383

MINUTES *****

I. Call to Order

The Retreat was called to order at 10:01 a.m. by Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Eighteenth President of Kentucky State University.

II. New Board Member Orientation

Dr. Brown conducted New Board Member Orientation for the new members of Kentucky State University’s Board of Regents. The training included a review of the most recent version of the Statewide Board Training and Orientation Booklet (September 2017), published by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE). Dr. Brown highlighted the difference between state-wide coordinated boards and state-wide managed boards and reviewed other topics in the booklet such as academic program review, consent decree, joint budget submissions, and performance funding.

Hon. Lisa Lang, General Counsel, provided an overview of Open Records and Open Meetings. The new members given copies of Your Duty Under the Law and Managing Government Records, materials provided by the Office of Attorney General.

Following the Open Records and Open Meetings discussion, Dr. Brown discussed the fundamental aspects of The Gold Book: Bylaws of the Kentucky State University Board of Regents. Dr. Brown reported that the bylaws are being revised with the final revision to be brought before the Board at the December 2019 Quarterly Meeting. He also described KSU's reporting structure, the organizational chart, Board of Regents meeting schedule, special called meetings, confidentiality during executive session, and public-private partnerships. Dr. Brown gave an overview of the history of the Management Improvement Plan and the targets that need to be met with this plan. He stated that the change in KSU's net position will be presented at the State of the University.

All attendees were provided handouts including the Academic Program Review First Report by the President's Green Ribbon Commission, the University's Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), How to Run a College, Organizational Chart, Attorney Pat McCloud's Book, and the Economic Impact Study. Dr. Rachelle Johnson, Director of Government Relations, gave a detailed overview of the legislative update handout.

III. #KSUForward: A Campus Overview

Dr. Tymon Graham, Director of Strategic Initiatives, gave an overview of KSU's current events, including a discussion of funds allocated for professional development and student development.

IV. Boots on the Ground: Unit Division Reports

Each of the University's Vice-Presidents gave an overview of what is happening in their respective areas:

A. Mr. Douglas R. Allen II, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration

EVP Allen shared updates about the new ID cards, the new bookstore, payroll deposits and tax reporting, audits, the Go365 initiative, dining services, and laptop distribution for students with zero balances.

B. Ms. Clara Ross Stamps, Senior Vice President for Brand Identity and University Relations

SVP Stamps spoke about ownership of the Kentucky State University Brand, delivering on the brand promise, protecting the KSU name on social media, and how to speak about KSU in interactions. SVP Stamps distributed the style guides, which included the new logos, and shared that KSU's magazine was named best alumni HBCU publication by HBCU Digest 2019 HBCU Awards. SVP Stamps concluded with an introduction of two campus campaigns, Get Your Green On and the Twinning Campaign.

C. Dr. Lucian Yates, Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Student Affairs

VP Yates reported on the SACSCOC visits, program accreditations, new academic programs, Maymester, and online program scheduling. Dr. Yates also announced new hires in his area: Lieutenant Colonel John Gregory, Dr. Michael Dailey, and Dr. Anthony Adams.

D. Dr. Derek Greenfield, Vice President for Student Engagement and Campus Life

VP Greenfield reported that KSU experienced a thirty (30) percent increase in dorm occupancy. He stated that move-in day was a success, with a viral video of campus move-in receiving over 18,000 views. Dr. Greenfield updated the audience on campus improvements that impacted student engagement such as renovations to the game room, the intramural program, green and gold lane markers in the pool, and improvements to the Exum Center gym. Dr. Greenfield announced that he hired a new dean, Dr. Pernella Deams and spoke about engagement initiatives such as the pop-up date party and the student section at athletic events.

E. Mr. Sean Ross, Director of Major Gifts, Division of Institutional Advancement

Mr. Ross discussed some key projects his division was working on, including partner for success; making touches to get people involved; endowment professorships; and developing relationships with alumni chapters, athletics, student success, and academics. Mr. Ross also reported on Institutional Advancement's involvement with Rotary, Kiwanis, and the Chamber of Commerce.

V. The Whole Truth: What Boards Must Know

Dr. Eurmon Hervey, Jr., Founding Partner of Genesis Consulting Group, conducted a training titled “The Whole Truth: What Boards Must Know.” This training covered a wide variety of topics related to the responsibility and accountability of board members.

VI. Board Evaluations

Dr. Beverly Schneller, Vice Provost, presided over the Board’s Annual Self-Evaluation. Dr. Schneller distributed the Self-Evaluation Instrument and discussed the process for the Self-Evaluation. Dr. Farris stated that she wants the results of the self-evaluation for the December meeting. It was noted that the data from the new members will not be tabulated with the data for the December meeting.

VI. Conclusion

The Retreat ended at 4:22 p.m.

Submitted by:

Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary

Kentucky State University

Board of Regents

___ Approved with no corrections

___ Approved with corrections

Dr. Elaine Farris, Chair

Kentucky State University

Board of Regents

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Annual Retreat of the Board of Regents

Thursday, September 5, 2019, 8:00 a.m. Harold R. Benson Research and Demonstration Farm 1525 Mills Lane Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Thursday, September 5, 2019, 11:30 a.m. USDA Cooperative Extension Building Kentucky State University Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

MINUTES *****

I. Environmental Education Research Center Update

Dr. Kirk Pomper, Director of Land Grant Programs, presented an update regarding the Environmental Education Research Center to the Board. Dr. Courtney Owens, Ms. Nancy Calix, Dr. Christina McManus, Dr. Robert Durborow, Dr. Avinash Tope, Dr. Kenneth Andries, and Dr. James Tidwell assisted in the presentation. Topics discussed included Chappell Pawpaw, the Goat Program, hemp research, new products related to fermentation, activities at the EERC in Henry County, shrimp production, and Kentucky State University's aquaculture programs.

II. Campus Buildings Tour

The Campus Buildings Tour began on South Campus at Old Young Hall where the attendees were shown the current dorms and the site of the future dormitory complex. The tour then moved to the Student Center which demonstrated several campus improvements in process, including the Thorobred Learning Center, the Game Room, the Campus Bookstore, and the dining facilities. The final stage of the tour occurred at ASB, where the Board was shown the newly renovated University College, and Exum Center, where the Board was shown improvements to the gym facilities.

III. New Resident Concept: A Virtual Tour

At the USDA Cooperative Extension Building, CRM Companies presented a virtual demonstration of the new residence complex. The demonstration provided information regarding some of the amenities of the new dorms, including a dining area, a recreational facility, and a multimedia room. The buildings will be constructed with concrete instead of wood to provide lasting durability. The new complex will include 408 beds and each room will have its own door. At the conclusion of the presentation, the Regents were invited to wear VR goggles to visualize the future of the new dorms.

Submitted by:

Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary Kentucky State University Board of Regents

Dr. Elaine Farris, Chair Kentucky State University Board of Regents

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS QUARTERLY MEETING

Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:00 p.m.

Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Board of Regents Room, Second Floor Kentucky State University Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

MINUTES *****

I. Call to Order

Chairperson Elaine Farris, Ed.D. called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.

II. Roll Call

President M. Christopher Brown II, Ph.D. conducted roll call:

Ten (10) Regents were in attendance. Without counting the unsworn Regents, quorum was established.

III. Adoption of the Agenda

MOTION by Regent Harnice:

Move the Board to delete Item (b), Approval of the Kort Athletic Contract, from the Consent Agenda of the September 5th Quarterly Meeting Agenda and adopt the Agenda as amended.

Seconded by Regent Banks and passed without dissent.

The Executive Committee Meeting that was scheduled at 12:15 p.m. on this date failed to occur due to a lack of quorum. This meeting will be rescheduled.

IV. Opening Remarks

Dr. Farris gave her opening remarks.

V. Approval of Minutes

MOTION by Regent Harnice:

Move to approve the Minutes of the June 6, 2019 Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Regents and the Minutes of the June 27, 2019 Special Meeting of the Board of Regents. Seconded by Regent Banks and passed without dissent.

VI. Statutory Board Actions

• A.A. Ms. Kierra Donald, Ms. Chandee Felder, Dr. Melanie House-Mansfield, and Dr. Joe Moffett were sworn in as a members of the Kentucky State University Board of Regents.

B. Election of 2019-2020 Board Officers

MOTION by Regent Reynolds:

Move the Board to continue the existing officers for the new calendar year: Dr. Elaine Farris, Board Chair; Mr. Dalton Jantzen, Vice-Chair; President Brown, Board Secretary; and EVP Douglas Allen, Treasurer.

Seconded by Regent Harnice and passed without dissent.

C. Signing of Annual Legal Documents

Each Regent signed the annual legal documents, specifically the Kentucky State University Board of Regents Conflict of Interest Certification and Disclosure of Conflict of Interest, the Kentucky State University Board of Regents Confidentiality Agreement, and the Office of Attorney General's Proof of Receipt of “Your Duty Under Law” and “Managing Government Records.”

VII. Bred of the Quarter Recognition

President Brown presented the nominees for Bred of the Quarter Recognition. Lee Williams was named the June Thorobred of the Month, John Hargrave was named the July Thorobred of the Month, and Tanya Carr was named the August Thorobred of the Month.

VIII. Campus Stakeholder Presentations

Dr. Helen Smith presented the Faculty Senate Updates; Regent Kierra Donald presented the Student Government Updates; Ms. Jasmin Thurman presented the Staff Senate updates.

IX. President's Quarterly Report

President Brown presented his quarterly report.

2

X. Consent Agenda

A. Approval of Jamaal Jackson Employee Agreement

MOTION by Regent Moffett:

Move to approve the Jamaal Jackson Employee Agreement.

Seconded by Regent Reynolds and passed without dissent.

XI. Board Recess for Committees

3

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Academic Affairs Committee

Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:00 p.m. Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

MINUTES *****

Call to Order

Regent Farris, acting the absence of Regent Jantzen, called the Academic Affairs Committee Meeting to order.

Roll Call

Regent Dalton Jantzen, Chair Regent Mindy Barfield, Esq. Regent Kierra Donald Regent Elaine Farris, Ed.D. Regent Joe Moffett, Ph.D. Absent Present Present Present Present

Adoption of the Agenda

MOTION by Regent Moffett:

Move the Board to adopt the agenda of the September 5, 2019 meeting of the Academic Affairs Committee.

Seconded by Regent Donald and passed without dissent.

Agenda Item(s)

• A.Action Item(s)
• NONE
• B.Information Item(s)

Dr. Lucian Yates, Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, updated the Board of Regents on the Academic Year 2019 Grades Report, the Faculty Instructional Loads Report, the Fall 2019 Persistence and Retention Report, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, and the Pre-College Academy.

Adjournment

MOTION by Regent Barfield:

Move the Academic Affairs Committee to adjourn.

Seconded by Regent Moffett and passed without dissent.

4

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Brand Identity and University Relations Committee

Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:00 p.m. Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

MINUTES *****

Call to Order

Regent Reynolds called the Brand Identity and University Relations Committee Meeting to order.

Roll Call

Regent Roger Reynolds, Chair Regent Ron Banks Regent Melanie House-Mansfield Regent Dalton Jantzen Regent Joe Moffett Present Present Present Absent Present

Adoption of the Agenda

MOTION by Regent Moffett:

Move the Board to adopt the agenda of the September 5, 2019 Brand Identity and University Relations Committee Meeting.

Seconded by Regent Banks and passed without dissent.

Agenda Item(s)

• A.Action Item(s) NONE
• B.Information Item(s) Ms. Clara Ross Stamps, Senior Vice President of Brand Identity and University Relations, provided updates on the Campus Brand Refresh, the Circle City Classic Schedule of Events, KSUNAA's Homecoming Activities, Quarterly Media and Brand Identity Report, and the status of the website.

Adjournment

MOTION by Regent Moffett:

Move the Brand Identity and University Relations Committee to adjourn. Seconded by Regent House-Mansfield and passed without dissent.

5

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee

Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:00 p.m. Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

MINUTES *****

Call to Order

Regent Mindy Barfield, Chair of the Finance and Administration Committee, called the meeting to order.

Roll Call

Regent Mindy Barfield, Chair Present

Regent Mildy Barfield, Chan Present Regent Elaine Farris Present Regent Melanie House-Mansfield Present Regent Dalton Jantzen Absent Regent Roger Reynolds Present

Adoption of the Agenda

MOTION by Regent Reynolds:

Move the Board to adopt the agenda of the September 5, 2019 Finance and Administration Committee Meeting

Seconded by Regent House-Mansfield and passed without dissent.

Agenda Item(s)

• A.Action Item(s)
• a.Amend Sextant Agreement and Approval of 2020 Statement of Work MOTION by Regent Reynolds: Move the Board to approve the Amended Sextant Agreement and 2020 Statement of Work. Seconded by Regent Farris and passed without dissent.
• b.Approval of Campus Travel Policy MOTION by Regent Barfield: Move the Board to table the approval of the Campus Travel Policy until the December Quarterly Meeting. Seconded by Regent Reynolds and passed without dissent.

6

B. Information Item(s)

Douglas R. Allen II, Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration and CFO, provided an update on the external audit provided updates on the CRM Resident Halls, the FY2019 Audit, FY2019 Enrollment and Housing, Performance Evaluations and Staff Training, the Quarterly Budget Report, the Quarterly Facilities Report, and Sodexo Key Performance Indicators.

Adjournment

MOTION by Regent Reynolds:

Move the Finance and Administration Committee to adjourn. Seconded by Regent Farris and passed without dissent.

7

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Governance Committee

Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:00 p.m. Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

MINUTES *****

Call to Order

Regent Harnice called the meeting to order.

Roll Call

Regent Paul Harnice, Chair

Regent Mindy Barfield

Regent Elaine Farris

Regent Syamala Reddy

Regent Roger Reynolds

Present Present Present Present Present

Adoption of the Agenda

MOTION by Regent Farris:

Move the Board to adopt the agenda of the September 5, 2019 meeting of the Governance Committee.

Seconded by Regent Reddy and passed without dissent.

Agenda Item(s)

• A.Action Item(s) NONE
• B.Information Item(s)

Shelia Trice Bell, Bell & Trice Enterprises, reported on the review of the Gold Book: Bylaws of the Kentucky State University Board of Regents. Regent Farris requested that all Regents send in their comments regarding the Gold Book Revisions within thirty days.

Dr. Rachelle Johnson, Director of Government Relations, provided an update on HB1, Kentucky's Comprehensive Universities and Quasi-Governmental Agencies Pension Reform.

Adjournment

MOTION by Regent Reddy:

Move the Board to adjourn the Governance Committee.

Seconded by Regent Reynolds and passed without dissent.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Institutional Advancement Committee

Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:00 p.m. Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

MINUTES *****

Call to Order

Regent Banks called the meeting to order.

Roll Call

Regent Ron Banks, Chair Present Regent Paul Harnice Present Regent Chandee Felder Present Regent Syamala Reddy Present Regent Roger Reynolds

Adoption of the Agenda

MOTION by Regent Harnice:

Move the Board to adopt the agenda of the September 5, 2019 Meeting of the Institutional Advancement Committee

Seconded by Regent Reddy and passed without dissent.

Agenda Item(s)

• A.Action Item(s)
• NONE
• B.Information Item(s)

Regent Banks tabled discussion of the Bourbon on the Banks Partnership. Sean Ross, Director of Major Gifts, provided information to the Board on the Giving Campaign.

Adjournment

MOTION by Regent Reddy: Move the Board to adjourn Seconded by Regent Felder and passed without dissent.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Student Engagement and Campus Life Committee

Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:00 p.m. Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

MINUTES *****

Call to Order

Chairperson Farris called the meeting of the Student Engagement and Campus Life Committee to order.

Roll Call

Regent Elaine Farris, Chair

Regent Elaine Farris, Chair Present Regent Kierra Donald Present Regent Chandee Felder Present Regent Paul Harnice Present Regent Dalton Jantzen Absent

Present

Adoption of the Agenda

MOTION by Regent Harnice:

Move the Board to adopt the Agenda of the September 5, 2019 the Student Engagement and Campus Life Committee Meeting.

Seconded by Regent Felder and passed without dissent.

Agenda Item(s)

• A.Action Item(s)
• NONE
• B.Information Item(s)

Dr. Derek Greenfield, Vice President for Student Engagement and Campus Life, provided an update on the 2019 Homecoming Schedule, introduced the 2019-2020 Student Government Association Executive Board, and gave an overview of 2019-2020 Programming Priorities

Adjournment

MOTION by Regent Felder:

Move the Committee to adjourn.

Seconded by Regent Donald and passed without dissent.

XII. Board Reconvening from Committees

MOTION by Regent Felder:

Move to reconvene after committee meetings.

Seconded by Regent Harnice and passed without dissent.

XIII. Closed Session

MOTION by Regent Barfield:

Move to go into Closed Session to discuss personnel matters and pending litigation pursuant to KRS 61.810 (1) (c) (Kentucky Open Meetings Act).

Seconded by Regent House-Mansfield and passed without dissent.

XIV. Open Session

MOTION by Regent Reddy:

Move the Board to reconvene in General Session.

Seconded by Regent House-Mansfield and passed without dissent.

XV. Public Actions

MOTION by Regent Harnice:

Move the Board to approve committee actions.

Seconded by Regent Barfield and passed without dissent.

XVI. Closing Remarks

Dr. Brown gave his closing remarks.

XII. Adjournment

MOTION by Regent Reddy:

Move the Board to adjourn.

Seconded by Regent Donald and passed without dissent.

Submitted by:

Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary

Kentucky State University

Board of Regents

Dr. Elaine Farris, Chair

Kentucky State University

Board of Regents

___ Approved with no corrections

___ Approved with corrections

11

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS Meeting of the Executive Committee

Thursday, November 7, 2019 1:00 p.m. Board of Regents Room 2nd Floor Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

MINUTES *****

I. Call to Order

Chairperson Farris called the meeting of the Executive Committee to order.

II. Roll Call

III. Adoption of the Agenda

MOTION by Regent Harnice:

Move the Board to adopt the agenda of the November 7, 2019 meeting of the Executive Committee.

Seconded by Regent Reynolds and passed without dissent.

IV. Discussion of President's Annual Evaluation Process

In accordance with the presidential evaluation process, Dr. M. Christopher Brown, II, presented his self-evaluation in order for the Executive Committee to discuss and provide constructive feedback.

V. Adjournment

MOTION by Regent Barfield:

Move the Board to adjourn the Executive Committee.

Seconded by Regent Reynolds and passed without dissent.

Submitted by:

Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary Kentucky State University Board of Regents

Approved with no corrections Regent Elaine Farris, Chair Executive Committee

Regent Elaine Farris, Chair Executive Committee

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: Strategic employee recognition fuels an environment that inspires new ideas and gives its communities victories to celebrate. At Kentucky State University, when an employee or a team achieves outstanding results — big or small — we must shine the spotlight on brand champions and their great work — the big finish with entry into the Winner's Circle.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: Our goal is to build a culture that thrives and understands the relationship between great customer experiences and Kentucky State University's brand reputation. The program aims to encourage constant workplace improvements, including evaluation of processes, work flow, communication, and ways to inspire enthusiasm for victories in the hearts of our employees, believing true success happens from the inside out.

The campus community and others will be encouraged to nominate employees who deserve special recognition for going above and beyond the call of duty to impact the customer experience while advancing the brand reputation of Kentucky State University. This program will recognize individuals whose service to the University provides exceptional benefits in the furtherance of the goals and mission of the institution.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 4: Enhance the Impact of External Relations and Development

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: The Thorobred Program will increase employee morale and aid in the advancement of Kentucky State University's brand position and reputation while recognizing individuals whose service to the University provides exceptional benefits in the furtherance of the goals and mission of the institution.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost is approximately $150 per quarter.

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: N/A

PRESIDENT'S QUARTERLY REPORT - December 2019 -

PEOPLE

• Dr. Erin Gilliam, Council of American Overseas Research Centers Fellowship
• Dr. Walter Malone, Outstanding First-Year Student Advocate Honor Roll
• Dr. Joe Moffett, Council on Postsecondary Education Faculty Advisory Netowrk

PERFORMANCE

• 2019 Management and Improvement Plan

PHYSICAL PLANT

• Bid Acceptance for Clock Tower Installation
• Douglas & Langford easement project concluding (TBD)
• Sias Pedway Incident with Department of Transportation
• Thorobred Fountain Installation

PLANNING

• SB 153 – Postsecondary Education Performance Fund for distribution through the Council on Postsecondary Education (working group must be established for triennial evaluation)
• Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) decision December 10, 2019
• Strategic Plan Updates and Revisions Task Force

POLICIES

• HB1 – Act relating to the KERS and declaring an emergency
• Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act
• Official Advisory Opinion related to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

PROCESSES

• Interfolio – Faculty Profiles, Reviews, and Dossiers
• Managerial Performance Assessments and Strategic Realignment

PROFITS

• Coca Cola and Department of the Blind Agreements

PROJECTS

• Application to COPLAC – Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges (www.coplac.org)
• “Great Colleges to Work For” Initiative
• Tuition 2.0: Using Revenues and Receivables to Reset the Base

PUBLICATIONS

• How a $250-Million Campus-Housing Deal Went Bad (Lee Gardner in The Chronicle of Higher Education)
• Many HBCUs are Teetering between Surving and Thriving (Delece Smith-Barrow in The Hechinger Report)

PUBLIC EVENTS

• December 5^{th} – End of Year Open House (4:00 pm)
• December 12th – Baccalaureate Assembly (11:00 am)
• December 13th – Commencement Convocation (10:00 am)
• January 6th – Spring Encampment (8:30 am)
• January 16th – Martin Luther King Assembly (11:00 am)
• February 4th – KSU Day at the Capitol (10:00 am)
• February 6th – Heritage Assembly (11:00 am)
• February 25th – Annual Fish Fry (5:00 pm)

POTPOURRI

• Annual Louisville Alumni Brunch on 12/14/2019
• General Assembly Opens on 1/7/2020

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY

HOUSE BILL 303 (2016)

MANAGEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE

NOVEMBER 27, 2019

M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II, Ph.D. President

ABOUT KENTUCKY STATE

From its modest beginnings as a small normal school for the training of African-American teachers, Kentucky State University has grown into a land-grant and liberal arts institution that prepares a diverse student population to compete in a multifaceted, ever-changing global society.

Kentucky State University began as an idea on October 15, 1885. The Commonwealth needed more normal schools to train African-American teachers for employment in its black elementary schools. On May 18, 1886, legislators authorized the school's creation, and the university was chartered as the State Normal School for Colored Persons, the second state-supported institution of higher learning in Kentucky.

During the euphoria of Frankfort’s 1886 centennial celebration, when vivid recollections of the Civil War remained, the city’s 4,000 residents were keenly interested in having the new institution located in Frankfort. Toward that end, the city donated $1,500, a considerable amount in 1886 dollars, and a site on a scenic bluff overlooking the town. This united display of community enthusiasm and commitment secured the new college’s place in Frankfort despite competition from several other cities.

Recitation Hall—now Jackson Hall—the college’s first building, was erected in 1887. The new school opened on October 11, 1887, with three teachers, 55 students and John Henry Jackson as its first president.

Kentucky State became a land-grant college in 1890, and the departments of home economics, agriculture and mechanics were added to the school's curriculum. The school produced its first graduating class of five students in the spring of that year.

• As the school began to grow and change, so too did its moniker. In 1902, the name was changed to Kentucky Normal and Industrial Institute for Colored Persons. The name was changed again in 1926 to Kentucky State Industrial College for Colored Persons. By 1929, most students had access to high school, leading then-President Rufus B. Atwood to discontinue the college's high school, which had been in operation since 1893.
• 4.

By 1929, most students had access to high school, leading then-President Rufus B. Atwood to discontinue the college’s high school, which had been in operation since 1893.

Even so, Atwood’s 33-year tenure was marked by dramatic institutional growth including the first modern yearbook, the first student newspaper, and most notably, by gaining accreditation for the institution. His administrative acuity and political acumen were necessary to position the university for growth during a period of marked social change, while avoiding fallout in the political town of Frankfort.

In 1938, the school was named Kentucky State College for Negroes and began focusing again on offering more traditional liberal arts education. The college notably gained full accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools the following year.

The term “for Negroes” was dropped in 1952 when the school’s name became merely Kentucky State College. In 1972, it became Kentucky State University and enrolled its first graduate students in the School of Public Affairs in 1973.

In the 45 years since then, more than 43 new structures or major building expansions have enhanced Kentucky State University’s 914-acre campus, which includes a 311-acre agricultural research farm and a 306-acre environmental education center.

Kentucky State University, “The College on the Hill,” is led by its 18th president, Dr. M. Christopher Brown II. It is a public institution with an enrollment of approximately 2,000 students and 120 full-time faculty members. The university’s diverse mix of faculty, staff, and students has made Kentucky State the most diverse public institution in the Commonwealth, and among the most diverse nationwide.

UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP

BOARD OF REGENTS

INSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Dr. Elaine Farris, Chair

Dr. M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II 18th President

Mr. Dalton Jantzen, Vice Chair22

Mr. DOUGLAS R. ALLEN II Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration/CFO

Mr. Ron Banks '23

Ms. Mindy Barfield, Esq. '21

Ms. Clara Ross Stamps Senior Vice President for Brand Identity and University Relations

Ms. KiERRA DONALD '20 STUDENT REGENT

DR. LUCIAN YATES III Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Ms. CHANDEE FELDER '22 STAFF REGENT

Mr. Paul C. Harnice, Esq. '22

Dr. DEREK F. GREENFIELD Vice President for Student Engagement and Campus Life

Dr. Melanie House-Mansfield '25

VACANT Vice President for Institutional Advancement

Dr. Joe Moffett '22 FACULTY REGENT

Dr. Syamala H.K. Reddy '21

Mr. ROGER REYNOLDS '24

Ms. Lisa K. Lang General Counsel and Records Custodian

5.

MISSION STATEMENT

Kentucky State University is a public, comprehensive, historically black land-grant university committed to advancing the Commonwealth of Kentucky, enhancing society, and impacting individuals by providing quality teaching with a foundation in liberal studies, scholarly research, and public service to enable productive lives within the diverse global economy.

___

6.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY REPORT CARD FALL 2015 FALL 2016 FALL 2017 FALL 2018 FALL 2019

FALL ENROLLMENT D B A A A

FALL TO FALL RETENTION B C B C B

COHORT STUDENTS RETURNING FOR THE THIRD YEAR F D D C C

GROSS TUITION AND FEES REVENUE F D C B B

YEAR END UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS EXCLUDING PLANT NET OF COMP ABSENCES AND PENSIONS * * * * *

PRIMARY RESERVE RATIO D C C A B

VIABILITY RATIO F D C B A

RETURN ON NET ASSETS RATIO F F B A B

NET OPERATING REVENUES RATIO F F C A A

COMPOSITE FINANCIAL INDEX F D C B B

7.

OVERVIEW

Kentucky State University takes seriously its charge to fulfill the aims and ambitions of the Commonwealth to provide continued evidence and outcomes commensurate with being the high performing small liberal arts institution envisioned in the original statutory charter. HB 303 enacted by the 2016 General Assembly, contained a provision that requires Kentucky State University to report its progress in attaining a defined set of goals and metrics related to student enrollment, academic persistence, and fiscal stability.

After a half-decade of stark enrollment declines and unpaid accounts receivables, Kentucky State University has emerged as a valuable “public, comprehensive, historically black land-grant university committed to advancing the Commonwealth of Kentucky, enhancing society, and impacting individuals by providing quality teaching with a foundation in liberal studies, scholarly research, and public service to enable productive lives within the diverse global economy”. Recent outcomes data on all indices confirm a mission-focused, fiscally conservative state institution rapidly transforming into a beacon of efficiency and effectiveness.

A focused and intentional shift in the operational culture is resulting in improved admission yields, academically ready undergraduate cohorts, increased retention, better than predicted persistence, higher tuition collections, reduced receivables, and fiscal ratios appropriate for credit-worthiness. The stabilization of student enrollment is punctuated by marked stability in the University's gross billable tuition and overall revenue receipts.

Kentucky State University has attained the student headcount and full-time equivalent enrollment to remain a viable and autonomous state-supported postsecondary institution. The enrollment and retention increases are noteworthy given the intentional attrition of prior cohort students who lacked the academic proficiency to be successful without a significant investment in unfunded academic and remedial supports. The campus community is transitioning to a community of scholars and practitioners preparing for the extant workforce.

The near flat operational expenditures coupled with increased fiscal revenues have enabled the campus to withstand a multi-year succession of reductions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's appropriations. The loss in total public funding revenue has placed considerable stress on the campus' operating budget. Even more, the threat of a fiscal cliff pursuant to the proposed equilibrium of the postsecondary performance funding model threatens to upend the last three years of progress and drive the campus into draconian operations.

Kentucky State University has continued to implement cost containment strategies including staff reductions, elimination of vacant positions, reorganization of administrative and academic functions, and the elimination or renegotiation of contracts in an effort to provide evidence that the University merits continued economic investment by the Commonwealth. These actions, while difficult, have positioned Kentucky State University to function within its current revenue stream. Although enrollment has stabilized, the institution still requires additional state funding to guarantee academic success.

• M.Christopher Brown II, Ph.D. Eighteenth President
• 8.

INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH OUTCOMES DATA

FALL UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSION

FALL ENROLLMENT

FIVE LARGEST FALL ENROLLMENT BY STATE

9.

INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH OUTCOMES DATA (CONT.)

FALL ENROLLMENT BY SERVICE COUNTIES

DEGREES AWARDED

TOP TEN ENROLLMENT COUNTIES IN KY

10.

2019 MANAGEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT DATA

HEADCOUNT & ENROLLMENT

According to the Kentucky State University management and improvement plan approved by the Council on Postsecondary Education, “a headcount enrollment of 2,100 students will provide sufficient resources for the University to reach long-term financial stability”. It is important to note that the Fall of 2019 is the first time the institutional headcount has exceeded 2000 students since Fall 2013.

Kentucky State University attained the prescribed headcount enrollment metric in alignment with a concomitant Strategic Enrollment Plan. The Fall 2017 enrollment include a sizeable freshmen cohort. However, a careful review revealed a proclivity for academic unreadiness throughout the class brought on by a conditional admission category. After a year of retrenchment, the campus employed an external big data admissions service to assist in recruiting and enrolling a college-ready freshmen cohort. Corrections began in 2018 and continued this fall.

Disaggregated data include two significant information points: (1) the scholastic quality of first-time full-time students have improved and (2) the number of students from the Commonwealth (including non-service counties) increased significantly.

In sum, Kentucky State University has developed a data-based profile of which students are best suited academically and most likely to be interested in the institution. One-untapped area for further enrollment expansion remains – transfer fluency with Kentucky Community and Technical College System member campuses. It is likely that the reduced out-of-state tuition being piloted is also a contributor to the yield.

FALL HEADCOUNT

11.

RETENTION & PROGRESSION

For at least a decade or more, Kentucky State University demonstrated an over-reliance in recruiting on significantly underprepared students. Many of these students lacked a realistic financial path to complete a college degree. This recipe yielded an annual retention rate below 50% (often in the low 40s). The university self-funded three initiatives that elevated the retention rate to 65.6% (nearly 7 out of 10 freshmen return for the second year). Despite the success of the campus’ corequisite initiative (eliminating all remediation courses), university college (which revamped advising), and the pre-college summer enrollment cohort, Kentucky State University does not have a financial plan to institutionalize these initiatives.

FALL TO FALL RETENTION

TUITION & REVENUE

Kentucky State University is committed to the long term stability of the institution via fiscal prudence and expansion of auxiliary based revenues. There is a noteworthy data trend that began in the Fall of 2018 and repeats in 2019. The data show that of the students applying to the institution, fewer students were admitted, yet more students enrolled. In parallel, although the enrollment line is flat, the campus collected more tuition revenue from enrolled students. The recent employment of a four-year tuition guarantee coupled with the decision to forego an approved 4% annual tuition increase has generated a tuition sweet-spot in the marketplace. Students pay what the institution charges.

FINANCIAL RATIOS & STABILITY

Consistent state funding is critical to the long term stability of Kentucky State University. The campus has suffered annual decreases in state appropriations resulting from the onboarding of a new performance funding stratagem. It is imperative that the institution builds on a firm revenue base while aligning expenditures with ongoing revenue.

Kentucky State University again received an unmodified opinion which is the highest level of assurance our external audit firm can provide. The audit resolved six audit findings from prior years. Although the audit capture cash-flow on June 30, Kentucky State University had receivable claims on cash of $4,456,000 for expenditures incurred to be reimbursed by the Federal Government. Despite the timing issue on cash deposits, the institution exceeded the Composite Financial Index as required by the HB303 Management and Improvement Plan.

The primary metric to evaluate the financial stability of the University is the change in unrestricted net assets each year and the reason for any change. Any use of unrestricted net assets (fund balance) should be a planned investment in the future of the University, fund balances cannot be used to support ongoing operations. Kentucky State University has not used our fund balance for ongoing operations.

14.

RETURN ON NET ASSETS RATIO

NET OPERATING REVENUES RATIO

15.

METRIC TARGETS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

16.

MANAGEMENT & IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY

The 2019 Management and Improvement Plan update confirms that Kentucky State University has implemented the necessary cost containment strategies, including the reorganization of administrative and academic function, the elimination of managerial duplication, personnel reductions and improved revenue collection. While these efforts are central to fiscal viability, alone these activities are insufficient to launch programmatic growth and expansion. Kentucky State University has demonstrated that it merits continued state level investments.

The years to come require an unwavering commitment to academic excellence, brand identity, and workforce production. Kentucky State University must continue ongoing efforts toward strategic enrollment growth, research productivity, economic development, and student success. A university is known for the quality of both its inputs and its outputs. There are several investments that can accelerate institutional stability. These supports include, but are not limited to:

• A commitment to provide Kentucky State University with the full matching funds requirement for all agricultural research and extension activities in the land-grant programs;
• Elimination of the existential threat posed by delayed equilibrium in adoption of the performance funding formula by making permanent the stop-loss provision (arguably the removal of the provision violates HB303 in both principal and substance);
• Authorizing Kentucky State University pursuant to KRS 45.763 to facilitate a public-private partnership to develop student housing to sustain increased enrollment;
• Granting Kentucky State University permission to retain proceeds from the sale of real estate and other real properties without sequestration or return of monies to the Commonwealth's general fund; and
• Providing Kentucky State University restricted supplemental appropriations to maintain academic excellence focused on student retention and success in strong support of the Commonwealth's workforce needs.

With stable enrollment, increasing revenues, judicious expenditures, and support from the Commonwealth, Kentucky State University is positioned to demonstrate continued improvement, institutional success, and state-wide utility going forward. The institution continues to meet the required targets for continued state appropriations and investment. Annual data provide compelling evidence of institutional transformation over the last three years. Kentucky State University aims to achieve all benchmarks and metrics set forth by the General Assembly.

ONWARD. UPWARD. FORWARD.

17.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY 400 EAST MAIN STREET FRANKFORT, KY 40601

#KSUFORWARD

WWW.KYSU.EDU

THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

YOU HAVE ✔ PREMIUM ACCESS

SECTIONS FEATURED: How a $250-Million Campus-Housing Deal Went Bad The Innovation Imperative M. CHRISTOPHE ▼ RENEW Individual Subscriber

M. CHRISTOPHE ▼ Individual Subscriber RENEW

e Searching Enrollment Crisis

FINANCE

How a $250-Million Campus-Housing Deal Went Bad

By Lee Gardner | NOVEMBER 24, 2019 ✓ PREMIUM

Mike Simons for The Chronicle

David L. Boren had grand plans for Cross Village.

As the long-serving president of the University of Oklahoma, he planned to expand the Norman campus's capacity for housing upperclassmen without incurring any debt. Cross Village would feature about 1,200 beds arrayed in apartment-style suites, as well as accompanying parking and some ground-floor retail space, all set to open in the fall of

A student-housing project at the U. of Oklahoma, only one-third occupied a year after it opened, has become a cautionary tale about public- private partnerships.

2018. The project would be built through a $250-million deal that used none of the university's money, just private capital.

By the fall of 2019, however, Boren was gone. Cross Village was only about a third full, and the ground-floor retail space was deserted. The bonds issued for the project have been downgraded, and the company that borrowed the money for the project could default on its loan payments. Accusations fly between the university and the borrowers and bondholders, and soon, so may lawsuits.

The deal-gone-sour between Oklahoma and the Cross Village developers provides a cautionary tale for colleges and private firms entering such agreements — called public-private partnerships, or P3s — which are an increasingly popular workaround to tight college budgets.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-250-Million/247607

The standoff also highlights the importance of leadership to the success of long-term projects, the risks inherent in rocky presidential transitions, and the potential for problematic projects to cause reputational damage for universities in a time of rising skepticism of higher education.

Boren was following a well-worn path by pursuing a P3, which is designed to offer something valuable to every party to the deal. Colleges get access to money to build without having to borrow or raise millions. Private-capital investors can put their money into seemingly safe vehicles — public colleges, for example — that are typically defined by their stability and longevity.

The Cross Village deal, as agreed to in 2017, was fairly standard. The university owned about 10 acres of land where it wanted to build a dormitory. So it entered into an arrangement called a “ground lease” with a subsidiary of the Provident Resources Group, a nonprofit development and finance firm.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Provident subsidiary leased the site for 50 years and borrowed about $250 million to finance the deal. Balfour Beatty Campus Solutions, the actual developer, oversaw the design and construction of the residence hall and parking garage.

Provident was supposed to receive the revenues from student-housing fees until the bonds were paid off. The university was supposed to rent the 1,000 parking spaces and about 40,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space from Provident, collecting student-parking fees and charging commercial tenants rent, and then making an annual lease payment back to Provident.

The housing fees and the rent from the university, in turn, would help Provident pay off its debt.

According to Steve E. Hicks, the founder and chief executive of Provident, if Boren had remained in office for another year or two, the project would have been an “outstanding success.”

But that's not what happened.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-250-Million/247607

‘They Had No Interest’

The first sign of trouble came early. When a college opens a new residence hall, it typically starts marketing the facility to students the year before the new beds will be ready, in order to better attract tenants.

The Outsourced University

The Outsourced University: How Public-Private Partnerships Can Benefit Your Campus

Hicks says the agreement with the university mandated that it sign off on all marketing materials associated with the project, so Balfour Beatty passed along the materials to the university's housing department for approval in October 2017.

The hope was that brochures and social-media posts would be ready to send out to students by December of that year.

ADD TO CART

But it wasn’t until April 2018, just

weeks before students were supposed to make their deposits for the following fall, that the housing department approved the materials. “We lost, in essence, an entire year of marketing,” Hicks says.

Standard & Poor's, a bond-rating agency, took note. In May the agency saw that Provident was behind in its marketing and had few tenants for the apartments. It downgraded the bonds for the project, signaling a potentially risky investment to investors.

Hicks believes that the materials were slow-walked through the approval process because the Cross Village project was driven by the president and other top administrators. Housing-department officials had not been involved in the project, and according to Hicks, “they had no interest in it.”

https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-250-Million/247607

The University of Oklahoma declined to make any administrators available for comment for this article. It referred The Chronicle to a recent op-ed by Anil Gollahalli, its general counsel, that appeared in The Oklahoma. In it, Gollahalli faulted Provident for going into “battle mode” by hiring public-relations firms and lobbyists, “all with the intent to pressure the university and the state.”

Mike Simons for The Chronicle

Not long after, at the end of the academic year, Boren took his previously announced retirement. His exit was messy. The final years of his presidency had been rocked by controversy after a 2015 video showed Oklahoma students performing a racist song. He later cut all ties with the university after he was accused of sexually harassing aides. Boren could not be reached for comment.

The first sign of trouble came early. Colleges typically start promoting new residence halls the year before the new beds will be ready. But not until just weeks before students were supposed to make their deposits did the Oklahoma housing department approve marketing materials for Cross Village: "We lost, in essence, an entire year of marketing." Not long after, at the end of the academic year, Boren took his previously announced retirement. His exit was messy. The final years of his presidency had been rocked by controversy after a 2015 video show of Oklahoma students performing a racist song. He later cut all ties with the university after he was accused of sexually harassing aides. Boren could not be reached for comment.

On June 26, 2018, less than a week before Boren left office, Hicks says university officials reiterated their

continued support for the Cross Village project to investors during a conference call.

Days later, James L. Gallogly, a former oil-company executive, took over from Boren. He had his own priorities.

In his first meeting with the Board of Regents, in June, Gallogly criticized Boren and despaired over the university's finances, saying, "We cannot continue to build new building after new building." Gallogly, who has since resigned, could not be reached for comment.

As construction wrapped up on Cross Village in the summer of 2018, Hicks and his team requested a meeting with the new president to gauge his stance on the project. They were granted a meeting in January 2019, at

https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-250-Million/247607

which Gallogly made it clear that he did not support the project and that he would do only what he was required to do by the literal wording of the contracts, says Hicks.

When Hicks warned the new president that legal action might result, he says Gallogly responded that he was a pretty good lawyer himself.

'Moral Obligation'

The ground lease between the university and Provident specified that the university would rent the ground-floor spaces and parking spaces on a yearly basis. As in many other states, Oklahoma law prohibits public entities from signing multiyear contracts. Annual payments to Provident started at more than $6 million and were set to rise during the term of the deal.

The size of that annual payment resulted from an unusual wrinkle in the deal that the institution itself had asked for: It wanted to front-load the amount of revenue it received for the ground lease. Instead of getting $1 million a year from Provident over the life of the deal, the university asked for $20 million upfront.

Hicks says university officials wanted the money to cover a $20 million cut in the institution’s 2016-17 budget brought on by a looming $1-billion state-budget shortfall.

The additional debt added to the deal by the upfront payment led Provident to charge higher-than-market price for the parking and retail space. Much higher. The commercial lease between the university and Provident pegs the payment for dining and retail space in Cross Village at $94 a square foot.

According to Brad Worster, a commercial real-estate agent in Norman, higher-end retail and dining space in town would probably rent for $30 to $35 a square foot.

“The above-market rates were agreed to” by the administration, Hicks says in an email.

After the first year, Gallogly balked at the arrangement. While the university paid Provident about $6.8 million to rent the parking and retail spaces for the 2018-19 academic year, it earned only about $40,000 in rent from the dining and retail space.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-250-Million/247607

It became apparent that the university did not intend to renew its annual lease for the ground-floor space or the parking. According to the Oklahoma Daily, Gallogly later told the Board of Regents that the money paid to Provident for Cross Village was “significant, and it’s not in the budget. That’s not acceptable.”

Without the payments for the retail space, and with still only about a third of the beds in Cross Village occupied, Provident found itself facing a serious financial shortfall, and potentially having to default on the bonds, which had their ratings lowered in August 2019 once again. Hicks says the bonds are currently trading at about half their original value.

Gallogly’s decision not to renew the lease was consequential. In cases where a public entity is limited in signing long-term agreements, the tacit understanding is often that the public entity will, in good faith, continue to honor the terms of the agreement throughout the term of the project.

The term of art for such situations is a “moral obligation.” The borrower trusts that a public entity — an arm of state or federal government — will make good on the deal. The public entity, for its part, is motivated to continue to hold up its end of the bargain so that it doesn’t end up with, for example, a failed project built on public land.

But moral obligation is not necessarily an enforceable contractual mandate, says Ted Risher, senior project manager of the Scion Group, a company that owns and operates student housing, who emphasized that he wasn’t familiar with the details of the Oklahoma deal. “Moral obligation is great,” he says, “until the first time something like this happens.”

Letters flew between lawyers representing the two sides in the dispute. David L. Dubrow, who represents UMB Bank, the bond trustee, wrote that “the university had previously expressed to the [bond] market that it intended to renew the leases on an annual basis,” and invoked moral obligation. He called the reversal of the deal a “reckless repudiation” and an “outright betrayal.”

He warned that the message the university was sending to the bond market was: “YOU CANNOT TRUST AND SHOULD NOT DO BUSINESS WITH OR BUY BONDS OF THE UNIVERSITY OR THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.”

https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-250-Million/247607

Molly Stephens, the lawyer representing the university, wrote that the university “wants Cross to succeed, but it must also protect the interests of its stakeholders, including students and taxpayers.”

She wrote that the university was under no moral obligation because it had not budgeted any funds to repay the debt on the project, and that the contract specifies that neither the university nor the state is obligated to pay the debt or any interest: “The university broke no promise, but simply exercised its explicit contractual rights.”

‘A Cautionary Tale’

Not all private-capital deals with colleges are likely to be this volatile. It has become a common practice for such partnerships to include clauses that allow either party to end the agreement, including for simple convenience, says Jill Jamieson, managing director of Jones Lang LaSalle, a commercial real-estate company that works with colleges.

Either side can get out, but the clauses spell out how that can happen, and how either party will be compensated. If such clauses existed in the ground lease for Cross Village, "There would have been clear rules of the road," she says.

At the University of Kentucky, which built nearly 7,000 new beds over the last decade through a private-capital deal worth $450 million, termination-for-convenience language was a key part of the contract — and required by state law. “You always need an exit strategy,” says Penny Cox, the university’s associate vice president for administration, who was in charge of the project.

The Cross Village ground lease includes no termination clauses, because bondholders wouldn't have abided them, Hicks says. “Frankly they were taking enough risk with the annual renewal required due to [Oklahoma] state law,” he says in an email.

The ground lease for Cross Village does state that in the event that Provident’s subsidiary defaults on its debts, that would invalidate the ground lease. The university would then be able to take possession of the building. Hicks believes that’s the university plan.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-250-Million/247607

Hicks says that the university, and the state, could suffer financial consequences once potential bond investors learn of the university's refusal to keep making lease payments, and may face steeper interest rates next time it borrows money.

In September, however, Standard & Poor's maintained the university's long-term debt rating as stable investment grade. The rating mentioned the Cross

Mike Simons for The Chronicle

Ground-floor retail space at Cross Village remains deserted.

Village bonds but noted that since the university was not guaranteeing the debt, the deal had not been factored into the outlook.

While there’s no single reason the Cross Village deal went bad, experts say, the transition between Boren, who supported the project, and Gallogly, who did not, was clearly the catalyst. Gallogly announced his own retirement from the presidency in May 2019, after less than a year on the job, in the wake of criticism of his handling of sexual-harassment allegations about Boren and of a video of students wearing blackface.

Cross Village might have gone better if it had had more champions at the university. If a project is close to the core of a university's mission, like student housing, "you need to bring the university and all parties involved along, and they need to be part of the conversation about the deal," Jamieson says. "It shouldn't be one person, and it shouldn't be one driver. You need to get consensus."

Creating widespread buy-in across a campus, and involving stakeholders throughout the process, was one of the key elements of success for the housing deal at Kentucky, Cox says. A team of more than 20 people from across the institution met every week to discuss the latest developments, Cox says, and “once we made a decision in the room, we didn’t look back in the rear-view mirror.”

https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-250-Million/247607

The controversy over Cross Village probably won't put the brakes on future public-private partnerships — and, says Risher, of the Scion Group, it shouldn't. "There's still value to be had by doing a good P3 project," he says.

But universities should always be circumspect when setting up such arrangements. “We see a lot of universities trying to rush out deals and get them done quickly — ‘Hey, we just want to get shovel-in-ground,’” says Jamieson. “If ever there was a cautionary tale, this is one. Take your time, do it right.”

Lee Gardner writes about the management of colleges and universities, higher-education marketing, and other topics. Follow him on Twitter @_lee_g, or email him at lee.gardner@chronicle.com.

Update (11/25/2019, 6:22 p.m.): This article has been updated with a link to an op-ed by the university's general counsel to which the university directed The Chronicle after this article was published.

A version of this article appeared in the December 6, 2019 issue.

© 2019 The Chronicle of Higher Education

1255 23^{rd} Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

×

https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-a-250-Million/247607

TOPICS ABOUT DONATE

Covering Innovation & Inequality in Education

Race and Equity

Many HBCUs are teetering between surviving and thriving

These storied schools are largely responsible for the nation's black middle class. They are also on the brink of financial ruin.

by DELECE SMITH-BARROW

October 23, 2019

The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox.

Last month, reporting from a drab hotel conference room in Washington, I witnessed something as bizarre as it was timely: Donald Trump, mired in a race-infused culture war of his own making, receiving repeated applause from a crowd of brown faces. He was heaping praise on the hundreds gathered there for his

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ page 66 or 276

remarks at the National HBCU Week Conference.

“You have shaped American leaders, trained American legends, pioneered American innovations, empowered American workers, built American communities. And you’ve made all of America very proud of you,” he told the audience. His claim mid-speech that his team’s support for historically black colleges and universities has been “bigger and better and stronger than any previous administration, by far” was a characteristic exaggeration. But it is true that the White House has increased investment in HBCU programming by 14.3 percent.

It surprised many that he had even shown up. The annual conference is hosted by the White House, but presidents usually don’t attend. Whether this was pandering ahead of an election year or not, much of the general praise President Trump

Gifts and mementos from international students and visitors are disp in the Office of International Affairs at Tennessee State University. Phe Delece Smith-Barrow/The Hechinger Report

offered up was accurate: The legacy of HBCUs is in every thread of American life. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the author Alice Walker and the “Black Panther” lead actor Chadwick Boseman are just a few of their culturally impactful graduates. Although HBCUs make up only 3 percent of four-year colleges in the country, they have produced 80 percent of the nation’s black judges and 50 percent

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ Page 67 or 276

of its black doctors. Among black college graduates with a degree in STEM, 27 percent are from historically black colleges. And remarkably, HBCUs have trained roughly 50 percent of black teachers.

They are also on the brink of disaster.

Rising college costs, the student loan crisis and federal budget cuts have broadly hamstrung higher education. But they’re killing HBCUs, where nearly three in five attendees are low-income, first-generation students and over 70 percent of students have limited financial resources. Fifteen of them have closed since 1997. Public and private HBCU endowments taken together are now roughly 70 percent smaller than those of non-HBCUs. And private historically black colleges saw a 42 percent decline in federal funding between 2003 and 2015. HBCUs are awarding fewer doctorates now than they did in 1977, and a report found that the six-year graduation rates at 20 HBCUs stood at 20 percent or lower in 2015.

ven after the next ig recession hits ne American conomy, some arquee HBCUs ill still find ways thrive. But the arsh reality is that me may be inning out for

While some marquee institutions with relatively large endowments, like Spelman College and Hampton University, face more common challenges, a large majority of HBCUs are facing existential threats and will need to be transformed, reinvigorated, to ensure that their futures are as vibrant as their pasts.

Related: HBCUs open their doors wider to international students

Things have changed several times over

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ Page 68 or 276

ozens of istorically black olleges.

since 1837, when the first historically black college, Cheyney University, opened in Pennsylvania. The schools were created to allow black students to enter higher education when white

educators — in the North, South and West — wouldn't let them. A brilliant, brown intellectual ecosystem had emerged by the early 20th century: Ask alumni and they'll tell you about the deep community, the lifelong friendships, the mentors who cared for them as if they were kin — all opportunities they believe they might not have had at predominantly white institutions. And so even after federal integration, HBCUs thrived.

As Walter Kimbrough, now president of Dillard University in New Orleans, explained in an interview with The Times in 2010, from 1984 to 1993 “historically black colleges and universities grew by 24.3 percent — 44 percent better than all of higher education.”

But that growth has reversed in some ways. In 1976, 18 percent of black college students were enrolled at HBCUs, but in 2010 only 9 percent were — a number that has barely budged since. In Atlanta, Morris Brown College, once a powerhouse, lost accreditation in 2002. It now offers just four bachelor's degree majors. Paine College, also in Georgia, is currently in a fight with one of its accreditors and its fate hangs on pending court decisions. Howard University, perhaps the most well-known HBCU, is under additional monitoring from the Department of Education for perceived mismanagement of funds.

Across the country, these schools are struggling in the competition for black students, particularly as predominantly white colleges are recognizing the power

1 1976, 18 percent f black college

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ Page 69 or 276

Students were rolled at HBCUs, but in 2010 only 9 percent were

of diversity, offering larger financial aid packages and slicker facilities while atoning for their role in racist systems. In this time of precarity, some HBCUs are getting crafty to stay afloat, using a grab bag of transformative shifts to boost

enrollment, finances and the attractiveness of their curriculums.

Some schools have turned to crowdfunding. Bennett College, an all-women's HBCU in North Carolina, was on the brink of closing in December after losing accreditation because of its financial instability. So the college began a #StandWithBennett campaign. It raised $8.2 million by February and regained accreditation, for now. But crowdfunding campaigns are a Band-Aid for wounds that needs surgery.

In 2017, after almost shuttering, Paul Quinn College in Texas, led by its president Michael Sorrell, turned the campus football field into a farm and the school into a work college, the first HBCU of that kind. Work colleges require residential students to do graded work — think helping to build a new dorm or answering phones in the admissions office — to offset the cost of tuition. It has worked so well for Paul Quinn that the school is looking to open a second site.

Related: Can ‘work colleges’ in cities become a low-cost, high-value model for the future?

Tennessee State University and Morgan State University in Baltimore have placed their bets on boosting their international student enrollment by the hundreds. For the past decade, most of their students from abroad have come from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and pay full tuition plus room and board for the precious commodity of

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ Page 70 or 276

an American STEM or business degree. It has been so lucrative that Morgan State has even increased the number of engineering classes offered over the summer to meet the demand.

There are hundreds of colleges that have low graduation rates and struggle financially, but the pain felt by HBCUs is concentrated within a specific minority community. And the HBCU cultural mission — enrolling and attempting to uplift students of color, including those of limited resources — is a noble but difficult business model.

Any school ultimately has three funding streams. Of those three, public sources (grants, and federal, state and local appropriations) for HBCUs have been slashed, private investment is low, and HBCUs' ability to raise tuition and fees — without either violating their core mission or suppressing the number of students who will even apply — is

BCUs are warding fewer doctorates now ian they did in )77

limited.

In Maryland, home to four public HBCUs, many predominantly white institutions have better-funded versions of programs offered at these neighboring HBCUs. The four of them viewed these programs as so similar to theirs that they sued the state over its being a direct attack on their ability to enroll more students. In September, Gov. Larry Hogan granted a $200 million settlement. But to put that in context, the University of Maryland at College Park — just one of those public “P.W.I.s” — received a private $215 million gift in 2017.

Related: Column: Don't say there's a lack of STEM talent in the

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ page 71 of 276

South

For HBCUs, alumni enthusiasm is high, but of the 46 HBCUs covered in a 2017 article by U.S. News & World Report, only 11 percent of alumni per school donated, on average.

You have shaped American leaders, rained American egends, pioneered American innovations, empowered American workers, built American communities."

Several Democratic presidential candidates have announced plans for billions more in HBCU investment. And the school’s continued track record in producing middle-class black families proves it would be a worthy one. For all of their struggles, two-thirds of low-income students at HBCUs end up in the middle class or better. But regardless of who is in office, the likelihood of any future Democratic Congress with an inevitably small majority passing expensive legislation catering to one minority group is slim.

resident Donald Trump, speaking t the National HBCU Week onference in September Several Democratic presidential candidates have announced plans for billions more in HBCU investment. And the school’s continued track record in producing middle-class black families proves it would be a worthy one. For all of their struggles, two-thirds of low-income students at HBCUs end up in the middle class or better. But regardless of who is in office, the likelihood of any future Democratic Congress with an inevitably small majority passing expensive legislation catering to one minority group is slim.

HBCUs' survival, then, hinges on more than digging deeper into the government's pockets. The schools will need to further engage alumni beyond

homecoming events and Greek life. It may also be helpful for them to create broader marketing campaigns — to lobby school counselors and state departments of education to better explain the richness of HBCUs — explicitly encouraging students of other races to apply as well.

Even after the next big recession hits the American economy, some

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ Page 72 of 276

marquee HBCUs will still find ways to thrive. But the harsh reality is that time may be running out for dozens of historically black colleges. If the federal government doesn't issue a rescue mission in the coming decade, it's a tragic extinction we should be prepared for.

Editor's Note: This story appears courtesy of The New York Times.

This story about historically black colleges was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn't mean it's free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that. All donations doubled through the end of the year. Join us today.

LETTERS

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

In this story Race and Equity, Higher Ed, News, Funding, Higher education completion, Higher Education newsletter, Race, Race and Equity

Delece Smith-Barrow

Delece Smith-Barrow is a senior editor for higher education at The Hechinger Report. She was a 2017 Knight-Wallace Fellow at the University of Michigan, where... See Archive→

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ Page 73 or 276

Read Next

HIGHER EDUCATION RACE AND EQUITY

HIGHER EDUCATION

Is California saving higher education? by JON MARCUS and FELICIA MELLO RACE AND EQUITY

Up to 3.6 million students should be labeled gifted, but aren't by DANIELLE DREILINGER

How one country with close parallels to the United States has made college free by JON MARCUS

Sign up for our Higher Education newsletter Get the best of our award-winning coverage sent to you weekly.

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ page 74 or 276

EARLY EDUCATION

Wealthy cities can afford to expand pre-K: What about everyone else?

In struggling Rust Belt cities, child care deserts threaten educational progress

by MEGAN CONN

The Hechinger Newsletter Never Miss a Story Stay in the know with weekly updates from The Hechinger Report

Latest News

→ TEACHER VOICE: Does AI, as a tool, deliver student feedback more effectively than the ballpoint pen? → COLUMN: U.K. to test 'ed tech testbeds' in real classrooms → OPINION: The odds are still stacked against low-income college students; here are some ways to expand the possibilities

→ COLUMN: U.K. to test ‘ed tech testbeds’ in real classrooms

→ OPINION: The odds are still stacked against low-income college students; here are some ways to expand the possibilities

→ Reckoning with Mississippi's 'segregation academies'

Never Miss a Story Stay in the know with weekly updates from The Hechinger Report

Enter your email

SIGN UP

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ page 75 of 276

THE HECHINGER REPORT

About Us

Media Partners

We cover inequality and innovation in education with in-depth journalism that uses research, data and stories from classrooms and campuses to show the public how education can be improved and why it matters.

Our collaborations with news organizations across the nation enable us to reach even wider audiences.

NBC NEWS TIME Slate THE HUFFINGTON POST

Learn more about us→

All Media Partners →

ABOUT SPECIAL REPORTS USE OUR STORIES OUR MISSION CONTACT US CORRECTIONS JOBS

Copyright © 2010-2018 by Teachers College at Columbia University. All rights reserved.

This website uses cookies as well as similar tools and technologies to understand visitors' experiences. By continuing to use this website, you consent to Teachers College, Columbia University's usage of cookies and similar technologies, in accordance with the Teachers College, Columbia University's Website Cookie Notice.

https://hechingerreport.org/many-hbcus-are-teetering-between-surviving-and-thriving/ Page 76 of 276

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: In March of 2018, the Board approved contract number 151901 for Managed Services with ADP. The University is requesting approval of a 2-year contract extension.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: ADP

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 3: Increase the University's Financial Strength and Operational Efficiency.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Due to increased payroll processing efficiencies we have negotiated a two-year contract extension with ADP. The contract cost is $265,000 annually which includes a 3% rate reduction with an annual cost savings of approximately $10,000.00. Additionally, we have negotiated two student paid internships with ADP.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval of two-year contract extension with ADP Payroll Services

ATTACHMENTS: YES

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

DATE: December 5, 2019

SUBJECT: Approval of the APAX Software Personal Service Contract

FROM: FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

ACTION ITEM: YES

BACKGROUND: Dr. Robert Durborow is the Interim Assistant Research Director for the College of Agriculture, Communities, and the Environment. He is also the project director of a United States Department of Agriculture Capacity Building Grant for a project entitled, Developing a Mobile App for Fish Disease Identification and Treatment, and Expanding a Commercial Database for Fish Disease Diagnostics. A budget of $79,920.00 was approved within this award for a mobile application developer. The contractor will create a mobile application with an associated clinical laboratory database to educate students and industry professionals and to enable more accurate and timely identification and remediation of fish pathogens. An experienced mobile application developer is critical to complete the grant objectives.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: Dr. Durborow’s federal grant funds will be used to fund the contractor services. A Request for Proposals was issued in August 2019 and an award was made to the lowest bidder, APAX Software, pending Board approval.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development.

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: The College of Agriculture, Communities, and the Environment and the University as a whole will benefit from the approval.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The contractor services were budgeted in Dr. Durborow's federal grant.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the APAX Software Personal Service Contract.

ATTACHMENTS: YES

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: Concur is a cloud-based expense and travel solution that enables the University to manage travel expenses for faculty and staff. Concur captures travel data to streamline expense reporting and travel spending.

KSU has utilized Concur Technologies Inc. for automating travel planning and reimbursement for several years. The contract had expired and was re-evaluated for transaction usage to establish an efficient agreement for campus services.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: Concur Technologies Inc.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 3: Increase the University's Financial Strength and Operational Efficiency.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: $20,000

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Concur Agreement.

ATTACHMENTS: YES

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: In order for students who have completed their course of study by the end of the Fall 2019 to receive their degrees, the Board of Regents needs to approve the lists of graduates at the nearest regularly scheduled Board Meeting.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: In accordance with The Gold Book: Bylaws of the Kentucky State University Board of Regents, The Board of Regents grants diplomas and confers degrees upon the recommendation of the President and the Kentucky State University faculty members. There are approximately eighty-three (83) candidates for Associate, Baccalaureate, and Master's degrees scheduled for the Fall 2019 Commencement Exercises to be held on Friday, December 13, 2019.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution to confer academic degrees for the Fall 2019 candidates.

ATTACHMENT: YES

Kentucky State University

Whereas, Kentucky State University's Fall Commencement Exercises are scheduled at the David H. Bradford Hall, Carl H. Smith Auditorium in Frankfort, Kentucky, on Saturday, December 13, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.; and

Whereas, there are approximately eighty-three (83) prospective graduates at Kentucky State University in Frankfort, Kentucky, who completed degree requirements for Associate degrees, Bachelor's degrees, and Master's degrees during the Fall 2019 term

Now, therefore be it resolved, that the degrees to be conferred upon the candidates for graduation by President Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, upon approval and recommendation of the Faculty and appropriate administration be, and they are hereby approved. Be it further resolved, that the list of graduates may be supplemented or modified as is necessary to carry out this resolution.

Be it further resolved, that the list of graduates may be supplemented or modified as is necessary to carry out this resolution.

We, the duly qualified and acting officers of the Board of Regents of Kentucky State University, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Kentucky State University Board of Regents at its regular meeting on December 5, 2019.

Dr. Elaine Farris, Chair Kentucky State University Board of Regents

Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary Kentucky State University Board of Regents

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: In order for students who have completed their course of study by the end of the Summer 2019 to receive their degrees, the Board of Regents needs to approve the lists of candidates for degrees. Sixteen (16) students fully completed the Kentucky State University requirements for graduation and are eligible to be included in the December 2019 Commencement Exercises.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: In accordance with The Gold Book: Bylaws of the Kentucky State University Board of Regents, The Board of Regents grants diplomas and confers degrees upon the recommendation of the President and the Kentucky State University faculty members. There are sixteen (16) candidates who completed degree requirements in July 2019 now eligible for conferral of Associate, Baccalaureate, Master and Doctor of Nursing Practice degrees as part of the Fall 2019 Commencement Exercises scheduled for Friday, December 13, 2019.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution to confer academic degrees for the Summer 2019 degree completion candidates.

ATTACHMENT: YES

Kentucky State University

Whereas, Kentucky State University's Fall Commencement Exercises are scheduled at the David H. Bradford Hall, Carl H. Smith Auditorium in Frankfort, Kentucky, on Friday, December 13, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.; and

Whereas, there are sixteen (16) prospective graduates who completed degree requirements during Summer 2019 at Kentucky State University in Frankfort, Kentucky, who are to receive Associate degrees, Bachelor's degrees, Master's degrees, and Doctor of Nursing Practice degrees.

Now, therefore be it resolved, that the degrees to be conferred upon the candidates for graduation at the Commencement Exercises of Kentucky State University submitted by President Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, upon approval and recommendation of the Faculty and appropriate administration be, and they are hereby approved. Be it further resolved, that the list of graduates may be supplemented or modified as is necessary to carry out this resolution.

Be it further resolved, that the list of graduates may be supplemented or modified as is necessary to carry out this resolution.

We, the duly qualified and acting officers of the Board of Regents of Kentucky State University, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Kentucky State University Board of Regents at its regular meeting on December 5, 2019.

Dr. Elaine Farris, Chair Kentucky State University Board of Regents

Dr. M. Christopher Brown II, Board Secretary Kentucky State University Board of Regents 276

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND:

The agreement for TouchNet, the software that allows for the online collection of tuition and fees and payment plan enrollment through the WIRED system, has expired and needs to be renewed. The University has used TouchNet since 2005.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES:

TouchNet offered the University three renewal terms: 1 year, 3 years and 5 years. None of renewal options contained a clause permitting KSU to terminate the agreement with thirty (30) days' notice. As a result, the University has decided to renew for one year in order to review other payment gateway and payment plan options and to also have more time to negotiate the terms of the agreement should the University decide to stay with TouchNet.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development.

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

Goal 3: Increase the University's Financial Strength and Operational Efficiency.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: TouchNet will cancel online payment gateway and payment plans service with KSU if this is not renewed.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

DATE: December 5, 2019

SUBJECT: Approval of Honorary Degree Candidate

FROM: ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

ACTION ITEM: YES

BACKGROUND: According to the Notable Kentucky African Americans Database (2018), Donald W. Lyons, Sr. was born in Lexington, KY, the son of Joseph B. and Sam Ella Lyons. He has been an educator, a librarian, and an athletic director. His teaching career began in Detroit, MI, in 1968, and continued in Kentucky in 1969. Beginning in 1971, he was hired as a librarian at Kentucky State University and became the library director in 1976. During his tenure as library director, Lyons also taught freshman classes and was a supervisor of the first-year teacher interns who were employed at various Kentucky schools. He left the library in 1989 to become Athletic Director at Kentucky State University, retiring in 1999. He is presently a Professor Emeritus. Donald Lyons, Sr. is a graduate of the old Dunbar High School in Lexington, KY, and earned his A.B. degree in history and political science at Kentucky State University. He earned a masters of library science from the University of Kentucky (UK) in 1971, thus becoming the fourth African American graduate of the program [it was recently learned that Mrs. George O'Rourke graduated from the UK Library School in 1966.] In 1994 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Faith Grant College (formerly Daniel Payne College) for outstanding work for the cause of African-Americans and in the field of education. He has served in leadership positions on committees within the Great Lakes Valley Conference (GLVC), and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). He is a past president of the Gamma Beta Lambda Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha and is Grammateus of the Delta Tau Boulé of the Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity. He was the 2008 recipient of the UK Libraries & School of Library and Information Science Lyman T. Johnson Torch Bearer Award. Donald T. Lyons, Sr. is an active member of community organizations and within his church. He is also presently a trustee of the Kentucky State University Foundation, serving as the treasurer and the executive secretary. Donald W. Lyons, Sr. is the husband of Myra L. Briggs Lyons, the father of Donald, Jr. and Reginald Lyons, and was a brother of the late Joseph B. Lyons, Jr.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: Awarding of honorary degree at Fall 2019 Commencement Exercises

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: Approval to award an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters to Donald W. Lyons, Sr.

ATTACHMENTS: YES

PERSONAL DATA

Donald Wallace Lyons

Name:

FORMAL EDUCATION

INSTITUTION

ACADEMIC DEGREE

Dunbar High School (Diploma) Lexington, KY (Honor Graduate)

Kentucky State University Frankfort, KY

A.B. (With Distinction and Departmental Honors

University of Kentucky Lexington, KY

M.S.L.S.

Morehead State University Graduate Studies Morehead, KY in Adult Education

University of Kentucky Lexington, KY

Graduate Studies in Library Science, History, and Education

MAJOR YEAR

N/A 1.964

History and Political Science

1968

Library Science 1971

Adult Education 1972

Library Science and History 1973 Higher Education 1974 Educational Administration 1975 Curriculum and Instruction 1976 Educational Administration 1977

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES

INSTITUTION/SCHOOL SYSTEM POSITION YEARS

Detroit (Michigan) Public Schools Teacher 1968-1969

Fayette County (Kentucky) Public Schools Teacher 1969-1975 Supervisor, Adult Education Program 1972-1974

University of Kentucky Lexington, KY Supervising Teacher 1969-1973

Eastern Kentucky University Richmond, KY Supervising Teacher 1972

Kentucky State University Frankfort, KY

University Library Assistant 1971-1972

Library Assistant 1971-1972 Assistant Librarian 1972-1974

Associate Librarian/Instructor 1975

Associate Director of Libraries/ Assistant Professor 1975

Director of Libraries/Assistant Director of Libraries/Assistant Professor 1976-1981

Director of Libraries/Associate Professor 1981-1989

Associate Director of Library Services/Associate Professor 1989

Director of the Institute for the Study of Black Kentuckyians/ Associate Professor 1990-1992

Acting Director of the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics 1990-1991

Teacher Educator, Department of Education K-TIP Program 1990-1999

Director/Associate Professor, Department of Intercollegiate Athletics 1991-1999

Professor Emeritus 1999-

Kentucky State University Foundation, INC. Executive Secretary 2008-

MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

ORGANIZATION

MEMBERSHIP

American Library Association

Kentucky Library Association

Beta Phi Mu International Library Science Honor Society Member, 1971-1989 Member, 1971-1989

State Assisted Academic Library Council of Kentucky

1890 Land Grant College Library Directors Association Member Member, 1976-1989 Chairman, 1980-1981

Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference Athletic Directors Association Member; Treasurer, 1984-1989

NCAA Division II Membership Committee Member, 1994-1999 Member, 1997-2000

Member, 1971-1989 Member, 1971-1989

Member Member, 1976-1989 Chairman, 1980-1981

Member: Treasurer, 1984-1989

Member, 1994-1999 Member, 1997-2000

BIOPHARMICAL LISTINGS

Who's Who Among Black Americans Who's Who in Kentucky Who's Who Among Students in Americans Universities and Colleges Who's Who in Libraries and Information Science Who's Who in the South and Southwest

FRATERNAL MEMBERSHIPS

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated; President Gamma Beta Lambda Chapter, 1982; Secretary, 1975-1981 and 1983-2001. Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity; Psi Boulé, 2000-2003; Grammateus, 2001-2003. Delta Tau Boulé, Charter Member and Grammateus, 2003-

FRATERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY

Kentucky Regional Director, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., 1984-1988.

CIVIC MEMBERSHIPS

Lexington Northside Lions Club; Treasurer, 1980-

NAACP, Lexington-Fayette Branch, 1982-1988.

Russell Elementary School Parent-Teacher Organization; President, 1981-1983; Vice President, 1983-1984.

Paul Laurence Dunbar High School Planning Committee, 1990-1992.

SPECIAL AWARDS AND HONORS

University of Kentucky's Lyman T. Johnson Alumni "Torch of Excellence Award" (2008) Paul Laurence Dunbar High School "Outstanding Alumnus and Hall of Fame Inductee" (2006) Delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Boston representing Kentucky's 6th Congressional District (2004) Doctor of Education degree (Honorary) Faith Grant College, Birmingham, AL (1996) Distinguished Service Award, Lexington Northside Lions Club (1990) Distinguished Service Award, Russell Elementary School Parent-Teach Organization (1983) Outstanding Lion of the Year, Lexington Northside Lions Club (1982) Man of the Year Award, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Gamma Beta Lambda Chapter (1980) Kiwanis Club Cup (1964) National Honor Society (1963)

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, MEMBERSHIP

Kentucky State University Foundation Board of Trustees, 1994- ; Treasurer, 2003-

Main Street Baptist Church Manor Governing Board, 1996-2005. ; Interim Administrator, 2004-

Jesse Stuart Foundation, Board of Directors, 1978-1984; Secretary, 1983-1984.

Selective Service System Civilian Review Board, Vice Chairman, 1984-1986.

Educational Advisory Board, Lexington Housing Authority, 1984-1985.

Constitution Park Youth Football League Board, 1988-1991.

Central Kentucky College Prep, Coordinator, 2004-2006.

CHURCH RELATED ACTIVITIES

Main Street Baptist Church, Lexington, KY

Deacon Body, Deacon, 1999- Trustee Board, Trustee, 2000- Church Treasurer, 2000- Finance Commission, Member, 1999- Budget Committee, Member, 1999- Pastoral Search Committee, Member, 2008-2010 Brotherhood, President, 1999-2008 Men's Usher Board, Usher, 1996-2000 Parent-Child Association, President, 1994-1998 Tutorial Services, Superintendent, 1997-2000 Youth Council Member, 1995-1999

COMMITTEE ASIGNMENTS: KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY

Academic Council, 1976-1983; Secretary, 1977-1978.

Academic Planning Committee, 1981-1983; Chairperson.

Ad Hoc Athletic Committee, 1981-1983.

All-University Court, 1981-1986.

Athletic Committee, 1984-1999; Chairperson, 1986-1990.

Athletic Concessions and Parking Committee, 1982-1983.

Athletic Director Search Committee, 2004-2005.

Basketball Coach Selection Committee, 1982.

Centennial Steering Committee, 1983-1984.

Curriculum Development Committee, 1976-1982; Interim Chairperson, 1979-1980.

Executive Council, 1976-1978.

Financial Exigency Committee, 1981-1982.

Founders Day Committee, 1976-1978; 1980-1982.

Graduate School Committee, 1982-1984.

Head Football Coach Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee, Chairperson, 2004.

Higher Education Management Institute Task Force, 1979-1983.

Higher Education Management Institute, Trainer, 1980-1983.

Inaugural Committee, 1983-1984.

K.S.U. Class of 1968 Ten Year Reunion, 1976-1978, Convener.

K.S.U. Class of 1968 Twenty Year Reunion, 1988, Convener.

Learning Resources Center Task Force, 1976-1977.

Library Committee, 1975-1983; 1988-1989.

Library Expansion Committee, 1986-1989; Chairperson.

NCATE Self-Study Steering Committee, 1983-1985.

NCATE Self-Study Committee for Chapter One, 1983-1985.

NCATE Self-Study Committee for Standard Five, 1983-1985; Chairperson.

Section 504 Committee, 1977-1978.

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Self-Study Committee on Student

Development Services (Standard Seven), 1977-1979, Chairperson.

Strategic Planning Task Force, 1990-1991.

Student Affairs Council, 1979-1984; Chairperson, 1982-1984.

Student Financial Aid Committee, Ex Officio, 1982-1984.

Teacher Education Committee, 1976-1989.

University Tenure Committee, 1982-1984, 1989-1990.

Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Search Committee, 1991.

Vice President for Academic Affairs Search Committee, 1998.

Who's Who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges Committee, Ex Officio, 1982-1984

Yearbook Committee, Ex Officio, 1982-1984.

PRESENTATIONS

“Cooperative Efforts: Library Services--Land Grant Research, Kentucky State University”. Presented at the Spring Meeting of the Association of Research Directors, Houston, Texas, April 16, 1985.

"The Future of Historically Black Colleges: The Politics of Desegregation". Presented at the Summer Weekend '81 Conference of the Kentucky State University National Alumni Association. Frankfort, Kentucky, July 31, 1981.

"Group Dynamics: A Primer". Presented at the Spring Meeting of the Academic Library Section of the Kentucky Library Association, Bowling Green, Kentucky, April 12, 1984.

"Heritage in Black". Presented at the Main Street Baptist Church, Lexington, Kentucky, February 11, 1984.

“The History of Kentucky State University”. A seminar for new students presented on the campus of Kentucky State University during Freshman Orientation Week, 1989-1999.

“The History of Kentucky State University”. Seminars presented (as needed) to new members of the Kentucky State University Board of Regents, 1991-1999.

"The 1964 March on Frankfort". Presented at the Carter G. Woodson Academy, Lexington, Kentucky, February 27, 2014.

PUBLICATIONS

African and African American History and Culture: A Comprehensive Bibliography. Frankfort: Kentucky State University, 1972.

Assessment of the Management, Operations, and Staff of the Main Street Baptist Church Manor. Report for Main Street Baptist Church. Lexington, KY 2004.

The Blazer Bugle. Kentucky State University Libraries Newsletter. Editor and Compiler, 1976-1982.

Bulletin Board. Library Services Staff Communicative Bulletin. Editor and Compiler, 1980.

"Central Five-Time Champ in Former Athletic League," The Courier-Journal, March 11, 1979, p. C6.

The Fascinating Story of Black Kentuckyians: Their Heritage and Tradition, by Alice A. Dunnigan, 1982. Contributor.

Follow-up of On-the-Job Training Placements. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board and the Office of Economic Opportunity, 1967.

In Black and White, 3rd edition by Mary Mace Spradling, 1980. Contributor.

Kentucky State University: Historical Highlights. Frankfort: Kentucky State University, 1991.

The LION, Lexington Northside Lions Club Newsletter. Editor and Compiler, 1983-1985.

March Madness: The Kentucky High School Basketball Tournament, by Mike Embry, 1985. Contributor.

Miscellaneous Contributions to the Louisville Courier-Journal, Lexington Herald, the Frankfort State Journal, and the Lexington Leader.

The PTO, Russell Elementary School Parent-Teacher Organization Newsletter. Editor and Compiler, 1981-1983.

Still Champions After All These Years, by Arthur G. Box, 2012. Foreword.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: Kentucky State University continues to follow its scheduled reaffirmation activities for academic programs.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: In the Fall 2019, the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) continued the accreditation of the Associate Nursing Program and the Baccalaureate Nursing Program (Report Letters October 11, 2019); NASPAA has continued accreditation of the Master's in Public Administration (M.P.A.) for another year and a site visit will take place in Spring 2020 (Report Letter November 12, 2019); and, on December 1, 2019, the Social Work program submitted its reaffirmation report to the Council on Social Work Administration (CSWE). The University will receive its institutional accreditation decision at the SACSCOC meeting in Houston on December 10, 2019.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: Accreditation of academic programs enables the University to attract, retain, and graduate students through high-quality education within the Commonwealth of Kentucky and fulfill its mission to transform the lives of citizens within its service area.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

October 11, 2019

NURSING EDUCATION REPRESENTATIVES

J.D. ANH H. BAKER, DNP, HSN, RN, YNP-C International Division, Moving Delaware Technical Community College Dover, Delaware

KRISTEN RABRES, P.O. R.N. CNS Program Director & Associate Professor Wingate University Wingate, North Carolina

SHARI GHOILSON, DNP, RNL, CNE Dean of Naming West Kentucky Community & Technical College Pekoe, Kentucky

AMY H. HALL, M.D., RN, CNE Duan, School of Nursing Franciscan Historians of Our Lady University Betan Rongga, Louisiana

CATHERINE MJANNET, MN, MN, CEN Director of Nursing (retired). Funzly, Nursing & Health Occupation Programs Southeastern College San Diego, California

LINDA PILES, SOD, RUN Chu, School of Nursing Daytona State College Daytona Beach, Florida

DISEASE J. RAHN BOLD, MEN, JUN SABC. Director Reading Hospital School of Health Sciences Reading, Parasophasia

GWENDOLYN TAYLOR, Ed. MNL, IN Dean of Allied Health and Nursing Augusta Technolcal College Augusta, Georgia

SCOTT THIGGON, DNP. RN, MGM, CCHN Professor of Nursing South Georgia State College Drugia, GA

VIMAN H. YATIE, NO. IN Adjust Faculty Cycology Community College Classical, Ohio

KATHLEEN ZAJC, EOD, MIN, RN Professor of Nursing College of Saint Mary Orama, Niayula

NURSING SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES

LENETRA JEFFERSON, MD, NH, CHF, LHT Registered Name: Elevator JeffCara, Jefferson Peck, Human Services Authority Melinda, Louisiana

SHILTEA VARDMAN, P.D. RN-BC, NBI-BC, CNE KUMedical-Surgical Registered Nurse Troy Regional Medical Center Troy, Alabama

LISA YOUNG, DNP, APN, RNP-SC Director, WellnessHealth Concert/Family Nurse Practitioner Chicago State University

PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES

STEVE ECKMAN, DMI President York College York, Nebraska

JOHN H. MUSSELL, Ph.D. St. Augustine, Florida

SUSAN ZLOTLOW, PhD Consultant Question, LLC Baffon, South Carolina

Geraldine Young, DNP, APRN, FNP-BC, CDE Interim Chair, School of Nursing & Health Sciences Kentucky State University 400 East Main Street Frankfort, KY 40601

Dear Dr. Young:

This letter is formal notification of the action taken by the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) at its meeting in September 2019. The Board of Commissioners granted continuing accreditation with conditions for two years to the associate nursing program, as the program is in non-compliance with Standard 6 Outcomes, and requested that a Follow-Up Report be submitted by March 15, 2021. If the Board grants continuing accreditation following the review of the Follow-Up Report, the next evaluation visit will be scheduled for Spring 2027.

Deliberations centered on the materials available to the Board from this accreditation review process and the recommendation for accreditation proposed by the peer evaluators on the site visit team and the Evaluation Review Panel.

The Board identified the following:

Areas of Strength

Standard 2 Faculty and Staff, Criterion 2.7

The Coordinator – Academic Support, Learning, Design, and Technology is a unique position held by a highly qualified individual who adds to the quality of the nursing education unit.

Evidence of Non-Compliance

Standard 6 Outcomes, Criteria 6.1 and 6.2

There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which students attain the end-of-program student learning outcomes.

There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students' attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.

There is a lack of evidence that the expected level of achievement for first-time test-takers during the same 12-month period on the licensure examination has been met.

3343 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 850 | Atlanta, GA 30326 | P. +1.404.975.5000 | F. +1.404.975.5020 | www.scenuring.org

x × x = 1

[无法识别]

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

October 11, 2019

* * *

Received 0CT162019

Academic Affairs

NURSING EDUCATION REPRESENTATIVES

JOHN P. BAKER, DNP, MEN, RN, FMPC Instructional Director, Nursing Delaware Technical Community College Dover, Delaware

KINSTON BARBE, MO, IN, CHE Program Director & Associate Professor Wingate University Wingata, North Carolina

SHAR GHOTSON, DNP, RN, CME Dean of Nursing West Kentucky Community & Technical College Pittsburgh, Kentucky

AMY M. HALL, MD, MN, CNE Dana, School of Nursing Francisco Missionaries of Our Lady University Brian Pough, Louisiana

CATHENNE McANNET, HN, MN, CEN Director of Nursing (retired), Faculty, Nursing & Health Occupative Program Southwestern College San Diego, California

UNIDA MILES, 600, RN Chair, School of Nursing Dysnoma State College Dysnoma Beach, Florida

OBSEE J. NAHN EO. HGN, RN FABC Director Reading Hospital School of Health Sciences Reading, Pennsylvania

GWENDOLYN TAYLOR, B.D., M.D., RN Doris of Alfred Health and Nursing Augusta Technikol College Augusta, Georgia

SCOTT THIGDEN, DNP. RN, MGN, CERN Professor of Nursing South Georgia State College Douglas, GA

VIVIAN M. VITES, Ph.D., RN Adjunct Faculty Capology Community College Clarkton, Ohio

KATHLEEN ZAJC, BOD, HSN, RN Professor of Nursing College of Saint Mary Omaha, Nebraska

NURSING SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES

LENETRA JEFFERSON, AND, RN. CNE, LMT Registered Name Elevator Jeffcare, Jefferson Parish Human Service Authority Hobbs, Leslieta

SHILLY A. VARDAMAN, P.O. KN-BC, NEA-BC, ONE ICUM Medical-Surgical Registered Nurse Troy Regional Medical Center Troy, Arkansas

USA YCUNG, DNP, APN, FNP-BC Disease, WellnessHealth CareerFamily Nurse Professional Chicago State University

PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES

STEVE ECIMAL, DMa Prudent York College York, Nelesu

JOHN H RUSSELL, MD St. Augustine, Florida

SUSAN ZLOTLOW, PhD Carmeline QianXie, LLC Balkon, South Carolina

Geraldine Young, DNP, APRN, FNP-BC, CDE Interim Chair, School of Nursing & Health Sciences Kentucky State University 400 East Main Street Frankfort, KY 40601

Dear Dr. Young:

This letter is formal notification of the action taken by the Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing (ACEN) at its meeting in September 2019. For the continuing accreditation site visit, the Board of Commissioners granted continuing accreditation with conditions for two years to the baccalaureate nursing program, as the program is in non-compliance with Standard 6 Outcomes, and requested that a Follow-Up Report be submitted by March 15, 2021; additionally, for the focused visit, the Board affirmed continuing accreditation with conditions following the implementation of the new prelicensure BSN program option. If the Board grants continuing accreditation following the review of the Follow-Up Report, the next evaluation visit will be scheduled for Spring 2027.

Deliberations centered on the materials available to the Board from this accreditation review process and the recommendation for accreditation proposed by the peer evaluators on the site visit team and the Evaluation Review Panel.

The Board identified the following:

Areas of Strength

Standard 2 Faculty and Staff, Criterion 2.7

The Coordinator – Academic Support, Learning, Design, and Technology is a unique position held by a highly qualified individual who adds to the quality of the nursing education unit.

Evidence of Non-Compliance

Standard 6 Outcomes, Criterion 6.1

There is a lack of evidence that there is ongoing assessment of the extent to which students attain the end-of-program student learning outcomes.

There is a lack of evidence that assessment data are consistently analyzed and used in program decision-making for the maintenance and improvement of students' attainment of the end-of-program student learning outcomes.

3343 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 850 | Atlanta, GA 30326 | P: +1.404.975.5000 | E: +1.404.975.5020 | www.accnaming.org

[20]

( ) 1. ( ) 2. ( ) 3. ( )

*注：

NASPAA—The Global Standard in Public Service Education

1029 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202-628-8965 • Fax: 202-626-4978 • Email: copra@naspaa.org

Monica Valentine MPA Program Coordinator Kentucky State University

November 12, 2019

Dear Professor Valentine,

The Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation (COPRA) has completed its review of your one-year reaccreditation decision letter response. We appreciate your efforts in responding to questions outlined in the July 2019 decision letter.

The Commission has reviewed your response to the concerns articulated in the July 31, 2019 one-year accreditation decision letter. Based on a review of your response, the Commission recommends the program proceed to an abbreviated follow-up site visit. The program should also update the Commission on the concerns described in the enclosed Interim Report and provide evidence of progress made towards implementation before COPRA's 2019 Decision meeting. If you choose to not proceed to site visit, please alert NASPAA staff by November 26, 2019.

Note that this initial feedback does not constitute prejudgment of an accreditation decision. A full discussion of the Commission's concerns will take place at the Summer 2020 COPRA meeting. You may submit responses and supplementary materials regarding progress until two weeks before this meeting, by May 22, 2020. Any responses should not only update the Commission on progress since the decision letter, but also look forward and discuss the program's plans for ongoing programmatic improvement.

To facilitate the on-the-ground review, a two-person Site Visit Team will be appointed. In visiting your program, the Site Visit Team will be directed to address the items listed in the Interim Report and provide evidence to confirm and/or clarify information provided in the decision letter response. To prepare, please review the Site Visit Manual, and other helpful resources, on the NASPAA website at https://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/accreditation-step-step/hostingsite-visit.

A member of the Commission, Peter Ngwafu, has been designated to serve as liaison to your program. I urge you to contact your liaison via email at peter.ngwafu@asurams.edu to discuss any questions and concerns raised in the Interim Report and to answer any questions you may have about the process. As Chair of COPRA, I would also be pleased to respond to your questions about this letter or the review process at maja.holmes@mail.wvu.edu.

Please notify NASPAA Director of Global Accreditation, Martha Bohrt ( mbohrt@naspaa.org) of your decision to proceed to site visit no later than November 26, 2019. Please also submit your response to the specific points addressed in the enclosed Interim Report by uploading a single PDF file to the Documents tab in the NASPAA Data Center no later than January 15, 2020. NASPAA Staff will contact your program shortly to begin the process of appointing your site visit team. Your site visit should be scheduled no later than January 15, 2020. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Chief Accreditation Officer, Heather Hamilton at Hamilton@naspaa.org.

We look forward to working with you throughout the remainder of the accreditation cycle. Please do not hesitate to contact myself or NASPAA staff if you have any questions. ATTACHMENT: Interim report: response requested

ATTACHMENT: Interim report: response requested

With warmest regards,

Maja H. Holmes, Chair

Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation

1

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: Academic Affairs continues to monitor the grade distribution report and trends based on student grades of D, F, and W. The information provided reports the trends from AY 2014-15 through AY 2018-19.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: The following graphs represent the % of D, F, and W grades earned over a 5-year period. While the percentage of DFW grades issued for the undergraduate general education and university orientation courses is higher than other categories, we do see a decreasing trend over the five-year period. The trend for all other areas is a slight increase over the five-year period.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: Academic Affairs will continue to monitor this report and work with Deans, Chairs and the Faculty to ensure a decrease in the rate of D, F, and W grades issued. These mitigation activities may include, but are not limited to, training on pedagogy, differentiating instruction, classroom management, and flipping the classroom.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

5-Year Grade Trends - % DFW

All calculations presented below make use of data received from the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness. Data retrieved are based on all courses offered in any given semester, with grades reported for students who received a posted grade for the course.

The percentage is calculated by taking the total number of grades D, F, and W divided by the total number of students in the class at the end of term plus those who received a grade of W for withdrawing from the course.

• This graph shows the relationship of DFW grades earned to total enrollment in the respective category or area at the end of the semester.
• As expected, the highest % of grades DFW are earned by students completing general education courses.
• While the highest % of grades DFW are earned in the category of general education and university required courses (freshman orientation), the overall trend is decreasing.
• oThese courses are taken primarily by freshmen and sophomore students.
• oStudents may not be totally prepared for college level work when they enter the University.
• oAttendance, or lack thereof contributes to the DFW % in all courses.
• oThis has been impacted by several factors including, but not limited to:
• The incorporation of developmental courses within the college level courses in the areas of English and Mathematics.

• The addition of Instructional Counselors in these highly enrolled courses in English and mathematics.
• The development and work of University College.
• ■ Increased emphasis on the assessment of the General Education courses.

Following is a series of graphs detailing the \% DFW grades and trends over the past five academic years, Fall 2014-Spring 2019. Each graph presents a comparison of a particular general education category over time as well as a comparison to the overall University undergraduate DFW rate. A trend line is provided to assist in assessing the five-year trend. Most of the enrollment in the general education courses consists of freshmen and sophomores, and many courses, specifically in English and mathematics are taken during a student's first semester on campus.

• Prior to Fall 2015, these courses included those such as MAT 095, MAT 097, MAT 098, which while credit bearing, could not be used toward a degree. In Fall 2015, along with a CPE initiative, the content of these ‘developmental’ math courses was incorporated into the credit bearing courses of the institution. Because some entering students are not ready to enter these courses, MAT 101, a 3-credit course is needed to prepare for the course required to meet the quantitative reasoning portion of the general education curriculum.

5-year Grade Trends GenEd - WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATION % DFW

Items of note:

• Fall 2016 was the first semester we used digital textbooks as part of the Pearson contract. There were several bumps along that road relating to availability of textbooks.
• During the transition period in 2017-18, there was a period of time where the student success unit, which was paid with soft money, was transitioned over to University College. Some procedures changed as did our early alert software. Faculty are beginning training on the Beacon software which is a part of the Campus Labs suite. This particular program facilitates the process of faculty referrals for additional student support.

Next Steps

Our next steps as they relate to grade trends in the DFW % are similar or the same as those within the discussion of Fall 2019 midterm grades.

• The Provost along with others in Academic Affairs review this data regularly in order to plan activities that will assist in the improvement of these percentages.
• Continued review and discussion takes place during meetings of Academic Affairs, Deans, and Chairs.

• Continue the review, revision, and update of the general education curriculum to incorporate items from our QEP as well as the CPE's Essential Employability Qualifications initiative. We believe this will encourage students to attend and perform better in their courses.
• Complete training in the Beacon system to ensure all faculty are aware of and using the system.
• All courses in these areas are reviewed by Deans and Chairs who encourage faculty to identify these students and work with them in class as well as refer them to other services such as the Thorobred Learning Center where they can seek additional help.
• Dr. Michael Dailey, Director of Distance Learning/Instructional Design is offering professional development sessions to faculty to assist them in the design of their online courses, to improve delivery of the courses, to provide them with additional resources, and encourage them to become proficient in Quality Matters as it related to delivery of online courses.
• An additional factor to consider is class attendance. Students who are in the DFW category generally have a lower attendance rate than those in the ABC category. In Academic Affairs and University College we are working to obtain and review attendance data and its correlation to course grades.
• oPlace emphasis on courses within each area that may act as bottlenecks for progression.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: A review of faculty workload is completed each semester to ensure utility of both faculty and financial resources.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: Academic Affairs has reviewed course lists, students per course, worked with Deans and Chairs to ensure all courses have a minimum student load to ensure financial efficacy. In some cases, students need courses to graduate or to remain on track for graduation, at which time special dispensation was given to allow small classes to go forward. When appropriate faculty conducted those courses as independent studies.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 2: Achieve academic excellence across all programs and colleges, Increase student general education skills, Degree persistence, Career readiness and graduation rates.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: Due to increased enrollments, some programs hired additional adjuncts, teaching assistants, and listed openings for new hires. Courses with low or no enrollment were either cancelled or offered as independent study.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

• Faculty Workload is measured here by the number of credit hours each faculty member teaches.
• Per the faculty handbook, faculty workload is 12 undergraduate hours or 9 graduate hours per semester. Some faculty have reduced workload for things such as administrative positions Dean and Chair. Faculty Senate President and Faculty Senate Secretary also have a one course reduction.
• The workload for faculty in the College of Agriculture, Communities and Environment is 3-4 credit hours per semester due to the nature of their research appointments.
• University College – Freshmen orientation courses are taught by Student Affairs personnel with a faculty line. They do not teach full time.
• During the Fall Semester, with the increased enrollment, many Chairs and Deans are teaching. Also teaching this fall are the Provost, Vice Provost and Deputy Provost. While they are teaching only one course each, this brings down the overall average per faculty.
• If you review the detailed list of faculty by College and the Faculty Workload in Credit Hours, you will see that all fulltime faculty without an approved reduced load are teaching at maximum or at overload.
• For Fall 2019, we have 28 faculty members teaching between 15-24 credit hours.

• Student Credit Hours (SCH) Generated = Credit Hours per Course * Number of Students
• For example, ENG 101 is a 4-credit hour course. A section of 20 students would generate 80 SCH (Student Credit Hours).
• Student Credit Hours have a direct relationship to revenue.
• oTuition is $7,710 per year for 30 credits per year
• oTuition per credit hour is calculated to be $257
• oNo differential for UG or GR in graphs
• The College of Humanities and Social Sciences generates the most student credit hours. Most of the General Education courses are in this college. These are generally our highest enrolled courses as well. They also have the highest number of adjunct faculty.
• University College teaches all sections of our freshman orientation course, another highly enrolled course.
• Adjunct faculty generate 14.2% of all Student Credit Hours Generated.

Average Number of Student Credit Hours Generated by Faculty Member

• This graph represents the average number of Student Credit Hours (Credit Hours per course * number of students in course) generated by faculty member.
• For the College of Agriculture, Communities, and Environment, this number is low because their faculty generally teach only 3-4 credit hours, or one course per semester. This is due to their primary research appointment.
• The College of Humanities and Social Sciences and the College of Business and Computational Sciences has higher number per faculty member due to the nature of the courses in those colleges. CHSS teaches many service courses, including ENG, SPE, PSY, SOC, and Arts and Humanities. These courses are typically highly enrolled. CBCS includes all the Math and Physics courses. These general education courses are also highly enrolled, particularly with the increase in the number of freshmen this year.
• Adjunct faculty in both CHSS and CBCS teach highly enrolled courses.
• There is only one ROTC instructor, so he has a higher load of courses than others.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: Each semester academic leaders review the distribution of grades at midterm and at the end of the semester. This semester, the General Education courses were reviewed due to changes in the General Education core for the Freshman class.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: The Office of Academic Affairs will continue to monitor and work with Deans and Chairs to ensure available support for students in high impact areas.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

Fall 2019 – Midterm Grades

• This graph represents all courses for all students at the current date.
• Grades of A, B, C, and P (pass) account for 66.53% of all possible grades.
• Grades of D, F, and W account for 25.6% of all possible grades.
• The category NA represents students who faculty determine have never attended the course but are still on the roster at midterm.
• The category Blank represents those students who received no grade in a class.
• The category Other represents other grades such as I, IP, N, X, etc., which do not represent an authorized grade for KSU courses per the course catalogue.
• Students in these three ‘yellow’ categories will be moved into another category or be removed from the roster as verification is completed and as final grades are posted.

Next Steps

• The Academic Affairs team continues to work with Student Affairs, University College and all Deans and Chairs to identify and refer students in the ‘red’ categories to the Thorobred Learning Center (TLC) for additional work and tutoring.
• TLC is providing additional seminars related to finishing strong, study strategies for finals, etc.
• Deans and Chairs are looking for bottleneck courses that may hinder student success and developing plans for assisting students in those courses.
• Our goal is to move at all of the students in the current D category and as many students in the F category as possible to the ABC category by end of semester. This goal would put us at the same or lower DFW rate as Spring 2019.

KSU - Midterm Grades - Fall 2019 Percentage of DFW to total grades issued - by Area

• This graph shows the relationship of DFW grades to total grades issued by specific course/student groups.
• Highlighted are the courses included in the general education areas by CPE category. The students typically enrolled in these courses are freshmen and sophomores, although other undergraduate students may be enrolled.
• MAT 101 at the bottom of the graph is the class that entering students must complete to be able to move to their university gen ed required course for quantitative reasoning. These are typically first or second semester students. This course has a higher DFW rate 27.4% than the university average for undergraduates 26.2%. These are students who generally struggle in math.
• Other areas which are above average include:
• oQuantitative reasoning 26.6%, students complete either MAT 111-Contemporary Mathematics, MAT 115-College Algebra, or MAT 200-Statistics. Again, most students enrolled are freshmen and some sophomores. Each of these courses have ICs, Instructional Counselors, who work with the faculty member to provide additional support and tutoring for the students.
• oArts & Humanities rate is at 31.7% for the Fall 2019. These courses include the language courses, ASL and Spanish, the IGS courses as well as the survey courses in Art, Music Theater and Literature. A quick glance at the detailed courses indicate this fall semester, students are having more trouble in the ASL and Spanish courses, along with the online IGS courses.
• Our recent revision of the general education curriculum allows more choice for students in this area. For example, language

courses are no longer required, but can be selected by the student if desired. The IGS courses, under the auspices of Dean Brooks are being reviewed and revitalized. New course offerings are being created to meet the needs of our 21st century students.

• oIn the Social and Behavioral Sciences area, one-third of all students have a D, F, or W at midterm. This category encompasses Economics, Financial Literacy, History, Psychology and Sociology.
• A scan of details reveals students struggling in Psychology, Financial Literacy, and in some of the online sections of the courses.

NEXT STEPS

• All courses in these areas are reviewed by Deans and Chairs who encourage faculty to identify these students and work with them in class as well as refer them to other services such as the Thorobred Learning Center where they can seek additional help.
• Dr. Michael Dailey, Director of Distance Learning/Instructional Design is offering professional development sessions to faculty to assist them in the design of their online courses, to improve delivery of the courses, to provide them with additional resources, and encourage them to become proficient in Quality Matters as it related to delivery of online courses.
• An additional factor to consider is class attendance. Students who are in the DFW category generally have a lower attendance rate than those in the ABC category. In Academic Affairs and University College we are working to obtain and review attendance data and its correlation to course grades.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: Federal and State laws require that students eligible for benefits under the Federal Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, 38 U.S.C. 33013325, or any other education benefits provided under Title 38 of the United States Code shall be entitled to in-state resident status for purposes of tuition charged at state-supported institutions. In addition, Federal Law prevents a college/university from penalizing a student while waiting for the Veterans Administration (VA) to make tuition and fee payments.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: Kentucky State University (KSU) is a military friendly university which recognizes the service and sacrifice of military connected students. KSU has a significant number of students who receive military educational benefits associated with their service or the service of a family member.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development and Goal 4-Enhance the Impact of External Relations and Development.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: Failure to comply with the aforementioned Federal and State Laws will create a disincentive to enrollment and retention for military/veteran students and their dependents. In addition, non-compliance could potentially jeopardize KSU’s ability to receive Federal funds associated with students who are eligible for education benefits under Title 38 of the United States Code.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

Office of Veterans & Military Student Affairs – ASB 323

PHONE: (502) 597-6795

MEMORANDUM FOR Bursar/Registrar, Kentucky State University 30 October 2019

SUBJECT: Military Educational Benefits Recipients/Students

1. Kentucky State University (KSU) is a military friendly university which recognizes the service and sacrifice of military connected students to include veterans, active service members, and dependents of service members/veterans. KSU has a significant number of students who receive military educational benefits associated with their service or the service of a family member.
2. Please be advised that colleges and universities will charge all students eligible to receive Veterans Administration (VA) GI Bill Educational benefits the in-state tuition rate pursuant to the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014 which requires postsecondary institutions to offer in-state tuition rates to qualified veterans and their dependents, regardless of state residency status. This includes students who qualify for VA GI Bill Education benefits. In addition, Kentucky Law (13 KAR 2:045) states: "a person eligible for benefits under the federal Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, 38 U.S.C. 33013325, or any other education benefits provided under Title 38 of the United States Code shall be entitled to Kentucky resident status for purposes of tuition charged at state-supported institutions". (All KSU students captured under the aforementioned Federal Statute and State Law will be certified by the School Certifying Official (SCO) at the in-state tuition rate of $3,850.00).
3. Effective 1 August 2019, Section 103, PL 115-407 of the Veterans Benefits and Transition Act prevents a school from penalizing a student while waiting for the Veterans Administration (VA) to make tuition and fee payments. Students covered under Section 103, PL 115-407 cannot be denied access to classrooms, libraries or other institutional facilities. The school cannot make the student borrow money to cover the cost while awaiting payment and the school cannot charge a student a late fee or penalty.
4. The military educational benefits include but are not limited to the following: Montgomery GI Bill Chapter (CH) 30; Vocational Rehabilitation Chapter (CH) 31; Chapter (CH) 32; Post 9/11 Chapter (CH) 33; Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA) Chapter (CH) 35; Montgomery GI Bill – Reserve Select Chapter (CH) 1606; ROTC Scholarship; Federal Tuition Assistance (FTA); State Tuition Assistance and Kentucky Tuition Waiver.

IN ALL THINGS EXCELLENCE Kentucky State University is an equal educational and employment opportunity/affirmative action institution.

Office of Veterans & Military Student Affairs – ASB 323

PHONE: (502) 597-6795

5. The following KSU students receive at least one of the aforementioned military educational benefits annotated above. This list is not exhaustive as students are still providing certificates of eligibility (COE) and military educational benefits are still being validated by the Director, Veterans and Military Student Affairs. Modifications and updates to this memorandum will be provided as additions or deletions occur:

IN ALL THINGS EXCELLENCE Kentucky State University is an equal educational and employment opportunity/affirmative action institution.

Office of Veterans & Military Student Affairs – ASB 323

IN ALL THINGS EXCELLENCE Kentucky State University is an equal educational and employment opportunity/affirmative action institution.

PHONE: (502) 597-6795

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY

Office of Veterans & Military Student Affairs – ASB 323

PHONE: (502) 597-6795

• 5. The point of contact for this memorandum is the undersigned, 502-597-6795, john.gregory@kysu.edu

John C. Gregory, Ph.D. Director of Veterans & Military Student Affairs and Assistant Professor of Public Administration

Director of Veterans & Military Student Affairs and Assistant Professor of Public Administration

IN ALL THINGS EXCELLENCE

Kentucky State University is an equal educational and employment opportunity/affirmative action institution.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: The position of director remained vacant until March of 2019. The establishment of the Academic Technology Planning team, a review of professional learning documentation, interviews with Deans and Chairs, guidance session with Provost and Vice Provost, and a review of the Blackboard Learning Management System identified as a need for professional learning, standard course delivery structures, and intentional use of the Blackboard Learning Management System. Three primary areas were identified and charged to the Office of Distance Education for the 2018 – 2019 academic year:

1. Establish a consistent infrastructure to deliver eLearning courses and content with support for faculty, staff, and students.
2. Provide ongoing professional learning opportunities to support eLearning standards implementation
3. Grow and develop eLearning Degree Programs and Certifications

The aforementioned charge was supported by data and information including the status of the learning management system, records of eLearning professional learning, and enrollment data. The Academic Technology Planning Team (ATP) in partnership with Blackboard Learning Specialist facilitated a planning and implementation review to establish key steps to address infrastructure and professional learning.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES:

Several Blackboard system updates ensured improved ADA compliance, usability, and mobile device functionality. Other activities include:

• Established Academic Technology Planning Team to assess current status of Blackboard usage, infrastructure, professional learning, and accessibility.

• Blackboard Learning Management System Updates Completed with transition to the 2016 Learn 9.1 Theme – with potential change to Blackboard Ultra in Summer of 2020
• Established Office Distance Education Mission, Vision, and Purpose Statements.
• Revitalized the Quality Matters Standards for Online Learning in Higher Education.
• Implementation of the Blackboard 24-hour Support Center
• Professional Learning Sessions for faculty
• Met with Deans and Chairs to establish online programming expectations
• Enrollment data over the past four years show a steady decline.
• oIncreased number of registered faculty from 15 to 50 July 2019
• oOf the 50 registered members at KSU 30 faculty members received initial training.
• oCall KSU Support Center Launch June 22, 2019
• o138 calls submitted between June 22 and August 26, 2019 – 98% successful responses
• o35 calls submitted between September 1 and September 20, 2019 – 94.29% successful responses
• oBeginning with Blackboard regular Tuesday and Thursday training sessions
• oSetting up your gradebook
• oAttendance Module
• oOnline Grading Reestablished
• oSafeAssign - Academic Honesty & Anti Plagiarism
• oReestablished Free Online Tutoring for all KSU Students
• oNew Online degree programs scheduled to launch in January 2020. The new masters programs and certifications will change to 8 week sessions allowing for two entry points per semester (Sextant Partnership)
• ■ Masters in Business Administration
• ■ Masters in Public Administration
• ■ Masters in Gerontology
• ■ Masters in Environmental Studies (16 weeks)
• ■ Masters in Psychology (proposed for Fall 2020)
• Expand the Masters in Special Education (16 weeks)
• Expand the Doctor of Nursing (Fall 2020)
• Expand the RN – BSN program (Fall 2020)
• ■ Completer Degree (2 + 2) – Online Criminal Justice
• oNew Online Certification Programs

Cyber Security Entrepreneurship

Network Associate Environmental Policy

• oFor the fully online graduate programs, the average student enrollment was 12.4 students.
• oCurrent enrollment in online and hybrid courses for the Fall of 2019 is 892

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness, and Graduation Rates

COMMITTEE/PROGRAM ACTION: N/A

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS:

The Office of Distance Education at Kentucky State University desires to provide opportunities to acquire new knowledge and skills necessary to meet the demands of a global marketplace. Kentucky State University Online (KSU Online) will become an emerging leader in the delivery of eLearning degree programs and certifications.

1. Increased enrollment for fully online degree and certification programs
2. Sustainable practices increasing quality educational experiences
3. Expanded infrastructure to support the delivery of online programming

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

DISTANCE EDUCATION: VIRTUAL AND HYBRID ONLINE STUDENTS FOR FALL 2019

Draft Proposal to

Relaunch Distance Education as Kentucky State University Online

The Office of Distance Education will...

• Collaborate with KSU Brand Identity to establish the KSU Brand for Kentucky State University Online
• Establish unique identifiers for fully online programs allowing proper data collection and reporting.
• Continue the collaboration with university colleges, schools, and departments to grow distance education program opportunities through increased enrollment, program expansion, and new program development.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: The University continues its process toward reaffirmation of our accreditation with The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools/Commission on Colleges.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: Since the last Board of Regents meeting, all updated documents, responses, etc. have been submitted and we are awaiting the next phase in the reaffirmation process which is the SACSCOC Board’s decision at its annual meeting in December.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 2: Achieve academic excellence across all programs and colleges through new accreditation and reaffirmation of existing accreditation activities

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: N/A

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: Trend data on enrollment and degree production assists the University in measuring its overall productivity, use of resources, and ability to meet strategic directions as informed by the University mission.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: The attached report summarizes, over a ten-year period, the comparative relationship between students who enter and students who exit (with degrees) the academic programs offered at Kentucky State University.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development.

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

Goal 3: Increase the University's Financial Strength and Operational Efficiency.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: Similar data was used in the Spring 2018 as part of the Green Ribbon Program sunsetting activities. The current data may be used as part of the Gray and Associates CPE Program Review initiative and may further be used within Academic Affairs to perform SWOT analyses on the performance of academic degrees and programs as part of continuous improvement and stewardship efforts.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Enrollment and graduation trend data may be used to inform revenue streams and budgeting.

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

Students’ Major and Degree Production

College of Agriculture and Land Grant Program

Certificate in Aquaculture

1

Certificate in Environmental Measurement

0 2017-2018 2018-2019 Fall 2019 Prelim

Degree 0 0

Fall Enrollment 0 0 0

• Fall Enrollment 0 0

Certificate in Family & Consumer Science

0 2017-2018 2018-2019 Fall 2019 Prelim

Degree 0 0

Fall Enrollment 0 0 0

• Fall Enrollment 0 0

Certificate in Fashion & Home Décor

0 2017-2018 2018-2019 Fall 2019 Prelim

Degree 0 0

Fall Enrollment 0 0 0

• Fall Enrollment 0 0

Certificate in Food Safety

2

Certificate in Geospatial Tech Application

0 2017-2018 2018-2019 Fall 2019 Prelim

Degree 0 0

Fall Enrollment 0 0 0

• Fall Enrollment 0 0

Certificate in Human Health & Nutrition

0 2017-2018 2018-2019 Fall 2019 Prelim

Degree 0 0

Fall Enrollment 0 0 0

• Fall Enrollment 0 0

Certificate in Sustainable Agriculture Systems

0 2017-2018 2018-2019 Fall 2019 Prelim

Degree 0 0

Fall Enrollment 0 0 0

• Fall Enrollment 0 0

3

Bachelor in Agriculture

Bachelor in Child Development

4

Master's in Aquaculture

Master's in Environmental Studies

5

Certificate in Cyber Security

Certificate in Network Associate

Certificate in Network Professional

6

* Inactive (Closed).

* Inactive (Closed).

7

Bachelor in Applied Info Technology*

* Inactive (Closed).

Bachelor in Business Administration

8

Bachelor in Computer Science

Bachelor in Mathematics

9

Master's in Business Administration

Master's in Computer Science

10

Bachelor in Biology

11

Bachelor in Chemistry

Bachelor in Nursing

12

Doctor of Nursing Practice

13

College of Public Service and Leadership Studies

Bachelor in Elementary Education

14

Bachelor in Music Education***

*** Previously reported under the same CIP code as Music (General).

Bachelor in Physical Education (Teach & Non-Teach)

15

Bachelor in Political Science

Bachelor in Public Administration*

* Inactive (Closed).

16

Bachelor in Social Work

17

Master's in Public Administration

Master's in Special Education

18

Certificate in Music & Culture of African Diaspora

1 2017-2018 2018-2019 Fall 2019 Prelim

Degree 0 0

Fall Enrollment 0 0 0

• Fall Enrollment 0 0

Certificate in Music Industry & Production

0 2017-2018 2018-2019 Fall 2019 Prelim

Degree 0 0

Fall Enrollment 0 0 0

• Fall Enrollment 0 0

19

Bachelor in Africana Studies*

* Inactive (Closed).

Bachelor in English

20

** Suspend to Close on 06/2024.

Bachelor in Liberal Studies

21

Bachelor in Mass Communication & Journalism

*** Previously combined with Music Education (prior 2016-2017).

Bachelor in Music***

Bachelor in Music Performance

22

Bachelor in Psychology

Bachelor in Social Sciences

23

* Inactive (Closed).

Master's in Interdisciplinary Behavioral Science

24

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: The Quarterly Media and Brand Identity Report reveals insights into the brand reputation and position of Kentucky State University in the news and among its publics.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: Brand Identity creates content and supports University programs and activities to promote, increase, advance and monitor the brand reputation of Kentucky State University while strengthening broad public and internal support of the institution.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 4: Enhance the Impact of External Relations and Development

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: By establishing and monitoring strategic communications targeted to specific constituency groups, we will be able to advance and increase the brand position and reputation of Kentucky State University.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION: Please continue to share news, media and branding strategies with the Division of Brand Identity and University Relations via news@kysu.edu. ATTACHMENTS: YES

RECOMMENDATION: Please continue to share news, media and branding strategies with the Division of Brand Identity and University Relations via news@kysu.edu

ATTACHMENTS: YES

KENTUCKY STATE BRAND IDENTITY DECEMBER 2019 SYNOPSIS

SOCIAL MEDIA

Page Likes: 10,241 Posts: 28 Post Engagements: 125,457 Total Reach: 201,043 Video Views: 86,836

Most Liked Post: Most Liked Post: The Mighty Marching Thorobreds performing at Bourbon on the Banks' Bourbon Street on Broadway

4,982 Reactions, Comments & Shares

5,240 Followers | 4,372 Followers Tweets: 82 | Media: 118

Top Tweet: Director of Bands Alvin Level and Churi Level accepting the @HBCUDigest Best Marching Band award #HBCUAwards Most Interaction: Welcome to @ KyStateU #KySU23! Your journey as a Thorobred starts NOW.

Impressions: 6,554 Total Engagements: 366 Media Engagements: 160 Detail Expands: 53 Likes: 83 Retweets: 34 Hashtag Clicks: 9 Profile Clicks: 27

Media: 17 Most Viewed (46): Circle City Classic

WEBSITE Sessions: 314,943

1,455 Views

Videos: 1 Most Viewed (7): #KySU23 Freshman Confirmation

Users: 120,781 Page Sessions: 2.59 Page Views: 815,623 Avg. Session Duration: 3:00

DEMOGRAPHICS

Bounce Rate: 45.58% New Sessions: 76.9%

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: In accordance with KRS164A.170, the corporation shall also cause an audit to be made by a resident independent certified public accountant of its books, accounts, and records, with respect to its receipts, disbursements, contracts, mortgages, leases, assignments, loans and all other matters relating to its financial operations. The persons performing such audit shall furnish copies of the audit report to the secretary of the Finance and Administration Cabinet, where they shall be placed on file and made available for inspection by the general public.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES:

FY2019 Audit Summary:

• The University received an unmodified opinion which is the highest level of assurance our external audit firm can provide
• The University resolved six audit findings from the prior year.
• The University closed the fiscal year with a negative net position of $(3,911,645).
• On the day the university closed the fiscal year (6/30/2019), the institution had claims on cash of $4,456,000 for expenditures incurred to be reimbursed by the Federal Government.
• Federal cash drawdowns from 2019 were deposited on July 3, July 10, July 11, and August 13 respectively.
• The delayed drawdowns resulted from new management verifications policies designed to delimit audit findings from return of cash.
• The University would have closed FY2019 with a positive net position if the cash was drawn and deposited timely.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 3: Increase the University's Financial Strength and Operational Efficiency.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the FY2019 Audit.

ATTACHMENTS: YES

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

DATE: December 5, 2019

SUBJECT: Approval of Orientation Fee Increase

FROM: FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

ACTION ITEM: YES

BACKGROUND: Kentucky State University strives to continue building upon ways to continue providing engaging opportunities for our students. While we aim to keep forward movement, we do not want to create a financial burden for the institution. Currently incoming students pay a one-time orientation fee of $35, which merely covers New Student Orientation (NSO) Costs. All of our current Bred Week expenses fall on the university, as there is no additional fee for students to attend. For 2019 the total expenses for NSO and Bred Week were $119,060.57. One reason this total was so high, was due to the fact that student meal swipes were not active, and we had to pay for all student meals. This proposal details an increased fee that would cover both NSO and Bred Week expenses, including meal swipes beginning during Bred Week.

In true Thorobred spirit, we are proposing a one-time fee of $188.60. The breakdown below details how this fee would be budgeted. Additionally, there are cost comparisons between 2019 and 2020 to show the estimated savings.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES:

Year 2019 (500 Students at $35) 2020 (500 Students at $188.60) Expenses $119,060.57 $93,000.00 Income $17,500.00 $94,300.00 Institutional Cost $101,560.57 ($1300.00)

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: Allow for New Student Orientation and Brew Week to be a independent self-sufficient program.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The Orientation Fee increase will allow for an increase in funding to cover all New Student Orientation and Bred Week expenses.

RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Orientation Fee Increase.

ATTACHMENTS: N/A

Kentucky State University

Proposal for

Student Orientation Fee Increase

Incorporating

NSO and Bred Week Cost to lower Institutional Costs.

Dr. Walter Malone III, Executive Director of University College November 1, 2019

Overview

Kentucky State University strives to continue building upon ways to continue providing engaging opportunities for our students. While we aim to keep forward movement, we do not want to create a financial burden for the institution. Currently incoming students pay a one-time orientation fee of $35, that merely covers New Student Orientation Costs. All of our current Bred Week expenses fall on the university, as there is no additional fee for students to attend. For 2019 the total expenses for NSO and Bred Week were $119,060.57. One reason this total was so high, was due to the fact that student meal swipes were not active, and we had to pay for all student meals. This proposal details an increased fee that would cover both NSO and Bred Week expenses, including meal swipes beginning during Bred Week.

In true Thorobred spirit, we are proposing a one-time fee of $188.60. The breakdown below details how this fee would be budgeted. Additionally, there are cost comparisons between 2019 and 2020 to show the estimated savings.

Orientation Fee

NSO (Meals and Spirit Items) - $23

Bred Week T-Shirt - $10

Bred Week Spirit Items - $20

Entertainment - $8

Confirmation Items - $15

Sodexo Special Event Catering - $50

Special Bred Week Guest - $60

This proposal shows how the increase of this fee, not only allows us to do more, but saves the institution from taking on the cost of Bred Week. We would propose that this fee be paid at the time a student registers for their New Student Orientation. We will work with accounting to have an orientation account setup, and these funds would be allocated to that account as they come in. All NSO and Bred Week expenditures would be processed against this account only. If approved this would go into effect for Fall 2020 Orientations and Bred Week.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: In June 2018, a Salary Survey Evaluation Report was completed to gather information on the current faculty compensation.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: N/A

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development.

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

Goal 3: Increase the University's Financial Strength and Operational Efficiency.

Goal 4: Enhance the Impact of External Relations and Development.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

SALARY SURVEY EVALUATION REPORT

PREPARED BY: MARA MERLINO, Division of Behavioral and Social Science BUDDHI GYAWALI, College of Agriculture, Food Science, and Sustainable Systems

TO SUBMIT TO:

SALARY COMPENSATION COMMITTEE KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY

AND

PRESIDENT M. CHRISTOPHER BROWN II

JUNE 17, 2018

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 Recommendations 3 Section 1: Respondent Information 4 Section 2: Salary Levels by Faculty Rank 10 Section 3: Salary Negotiation 13 Section 4: Salary Equity 14 Section 5: Recommended Overload and Summer Salaries 29 Section 6: Respondent Information 35 Section 7: Faculty Comments 38

*Document printed as submitted.

1

Sixty-six of the total 67 faculty members (99.0%) responded to the question about KSU salary equity compared to similar institutions. Of these, 60 (90.9%) indicated that salaries at Kentucky State University are not competitive when compared to salaries at similar comprehensive state universities. Faculty opinions about this matter were based on information from a variety of reliable sources, including CUPA-HR, AAUP, and comparisons with other institutions. The survey data clearly indicate that faculty across campus feel that there is a substantial discrepancy between current Kentucky State University salaries and the salaries offered for similar positions at comparable institutions.

Although these data represent the responses of a subset of the faculty members at Kentucky State University, they provide clear evidence that faculty compensation in many areas is inconsistent both within and across Divisions. Of the 61 faculty members (91.0%) who responded to this question, 42 (68.8%) reported that new faculty members have been hired in their Divisions at higher salaries than those earned by current faculty members who have been working for many years at lower salaries. Fifty-five of the 67 faculty members (82.1%) responded to the question of salary equity by academic rank. Of these, 30 faculty members (54.5%) felt that their salaries were not at all equitable for the number of years in their rank. There have been no raises for many years and rank/discipline ranges have not been adjusted since 2012.

Among the 61 faculty members who responded (91.0%), the mean number of years of service was 9.3 years, with a median of 10 years of service. Both the mean and the median year of hire for these respondents was 2007. Among the 64 faculty members who responded (96.0%), the mean number of years of service was 9.3 years, with a median of 10 years of service. Of the 64 faculty members who responded (96.0%), 35 (54.7%) were hired at the Assistant Professor level, while another 19 (29.7%) joined KSU as visiting or adjunct faculty, lecturers, or instructors. Of the 61 faculty members who responded (91.0%), 44 (72.1%) were currently in either 9-month or 12-month tenure track positions.

Of the 67 faculty members who participated, 26 respondents (38.8%) currently hold tenure, 25 respondents (34.3%) are in tenure-track positions, and 11 respondents (16.4%) are in non-tenure track positions. Of the 58 faculty members who responded to race/ethnicity question, 20 (34.4%) identified their race/ethnicity as African American or other African descent, 31 (53.4%) identified themselves as Caucasian, and 3 (5.2%) identified as Asian/Pacific Islander. One faculty member (1.7%) identified as having more than one race or ethnicity. Twelve faculty members (20.7%) declined to respond to this question. Fifty-seven faculty members (85.1%) responded to the question about sex. Of these, 30 (52.6%) were female and 27 (40.3%) were male. Ten of the total 67 faculty members (14.9%) declined to respond to this question.

Kentucky State University Faculty Senate conducted a faculty salary compensation survey with all faculty members between May 8-14, 2018 to gather the faculty's thoughts about the current discussions about faculty compensation. An electronic survey via Surveymonkey.com was sent to all 145 KSU faculty members, of which 69 (44.47%) faculty members responded to the survey. Of these, two surveys were completed outside the time limit, so these responses are not included in the data analyses. The number of respondents varies by question, as some faculty members declined to respond to all questions.

Executive Summary

Executive Summary cont.

RECOMMENDED ANNUAL SALARY

The mean and median recommended 9-month base salaries for Assistant Professors were $69,445 and $65,000, respectively. The mean and median recommended 9-month base salaries for Associate Professors were $79,049, and $75,000, respectively. The mean and median recommended 9-month base salaries for Full Professors were $93,636 and $90,000.

COST OF LIVING INCREASE

Sixty-five of the total 67 faculty members (97.0%) responded to the question about cost of living increases. Of these, 36 faculty members (55.4%) felt that cost of living (COL) increases should occur annually, with an additional 17 faculty members (26.2%) recommending a COL living increase at least every other year.

！

Sixty-two of the total 67 faculty members responded to the question about the percentage increase for cost of living (COL). Of these, 28 faculty members (45.1%) indicated that cost of living increases should be in the amount of 2% to 3%, while another 12 respondents (19.3%) indicated that increases should be 4% or 5%. Ten respondents (16.1%) recommended raises of 5% because most faculty have not had raises for many years. Other respondents reported COL should cover inflation or at least equal to the Cost-Of-Living Adjustment (COLA) as determined by the Social Security Administration.

GENDER AND RACIAL SALARY EQUITY

Forty of the 67 faculty members responded to this question. Of these, 27 respondents (67.5%) reported lower levels of gender equity in faculty salaries, while 13 respondents (32.5%) reported a moderate or complete level. Verbatim comments demonstrated mixed responses about the extent of gender equity. In terms of racial equity, of the 31 faculty members who responded to this question, 20 (64.6%) felt that salaries at KSU reflect racial disparity, while 11 respondents (35.5%) indicated that there is moderate or complete salary equity.

SALARY EQUITY AND TEACHING, SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY, AND SERVICE PRODUCTIVITY

Of the 62 faculty members who responded to these questions, an average of 54.8% reported that recognition of teaching merit was not at all reflected in their salaries. Similarly, of the 57 faculty members who responded to questions about scholarly activity, an average of 42.3% felt that research and scholarly activity was not at all reflected in their salaries. Sixty-one faculty members responded to the questions about service activities. Of these, 61.9% responded that their service activities had no impact on salaries.

MERIT INCREASE

Twenty faculty members recommended an amount of 5% for merit increases awarded with yearly evaluations. Sixteen faculty members recommended a 3% increase, while an additional 11 recommended a 2% increase. However, Faculty who have been here for many years should be brought current to pay for new hires in the same department. The raises for rank (such as COL or merit raise) increases should apply after salaries are brought to current market levels.

OVERLOAD AND SUMMER SALARIES

The mean recommended compensation for teaching an overload course at the graduate level was $3,974, the median was slightly lower at $3,600. The mean recommended compensation for teaching an overload course at the undergraduate level was $3,121; the median was slightly lower at $2,850. The mean recommended compensation for teaching a summer course was $3,534. The median was slightly lower at $3,000.

Recommendations

The goal of this study was to gain an accurate snapshot of faculty opinions that represent all departments, divisions, and disciplines. This 'opinion' based survey report is intended to be a supplement to the comprehensive work of the ad hoc Salary Compensation Committee appointed by President Brown, and therefore is not intended to supplant, or serve its expected official data driven study.

BASED ON THE SURVEY RESULTS, WE PROVIDE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Appropriate Cost of Living (minimum 5%) and salary raise should be provided to all faculty immediately effective July 2018. Consideration should be given to bring salaries of faculty who have been at KSU for many years to current market levels based on rank and years of service to ensure salary equity with salaries of new hires in the same department. Cost of living and merit raises should apply after equity has been achieved.
2. Create a standard KSU CUPA Faculty Salary chart based on the rank, discipline, and years of service. The recommended average salaries are: $69,445 for Assistant Professors, $79,049 for Associate Professors and $93,636 for Full Professors. Salary for 12-month faculty should be then be calculated accordingly.
3. Review salaries frequently and give raises as necessary to keep KSU faculty salaries consistent with market levels for rank and years of service. Offer starting salaries that are consistent with market levels, and provide annual cost of living increases to help prevent the current level of salary inversion from occurring in the future.
4. Develop and publish clear and consistent policies for all. Require administrators who are in positions to approve hiring and salary decisions to follow KSU policy to ensure that all faculty are treated fairly.
5. Merit increases should be based on demonstrable achievement to help minimize the impact of evaluator subjectivity. Achievement should be empirically documented and consistent across the university. Merit increase evaluations should be vetted by a university-wide Committee similar to the Tenure and Promotion Committee.
6. Administrators should follow policies and procedures already in place for hiring faculty and administrators with rank and tenure. Faculty should have more input into administrative hiring proceedings in the interests of shared governance.
7. Faculty should receive a stipend equivalent to the amount awarded for teaching an overload class or a percentage of the Indirect Costs awarded to the university (whichever is greater) for producing grant proposals that are successfully funded.

3

<table><tr><td colspan="3">1980s</td></tr><tr><td>1980</td><td>1981</td><td>1982</td></tr><tr><td>1981</td><td>1982</td><td>1983</td></tr><tr><td>1982</td><td>1983</td><td>1984</td></tr><tr><td>1983</td><td>1984</td><td>1985</td></tr><tr><td>1984</td><td>1985</td><td>1986</td></tr><tr><td>1985</td><td>1986</td><td>1987</td></tr><tr><td>1986</td><td>1987</td><td>1988</td></tr><tr><td>1987</td><td>1988</td><td>1989</td></tr><tr><td>1988</td><td>1989</td><td>1990</td></tr><tr><td>1989</td><td>1990</td><td>1991</td></tr><tr><td>1990</td><td>1991</td><td>1992</td></tr><tr><td>1991</td><td>1992</td><td>1993</td></tr><tr><td>1992</td><td>1993</td><td>1994</td></tr><tr><td>1993</td><td>1994</td><td>1995</td></tr><tr><td>1994</td><td>1995</td><td>1996</td></tr><tr><td>1995</td><td>1996</td><td>1997</td></tr><tr><td>1996</td><td>1997</td><td>1998</td></tr><tr><td>1997</td><td>1998</td><td>1999</td></tr><tr><td>1998</td><td>1999</td><td>2000</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>2000</td><td>2001</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>2001</td><td>2002</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>2002</td><td>2003</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>2003</td><td>2004</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>2004</td><td>2005</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>2005</td><td>2006</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>2006</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>2007</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>2008</td><td>2009</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>2009</td><td>2010</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>2010</td><td>2011</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>2011</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>2012</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>2013</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>2014</td><td>2015</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>2015</td><td>2016</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>2016</td><td>2017</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>2017</td><td>2018</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>2018</td><td>2019</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>2019</td><td>2020</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>2020</td><td>2021</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>2021</td><td>2022</td></tr><tr><td>2022</td><td>2022</td><td>2023</td></tr></table>

SECTION 1: Respondent Information

QUESTION 1: What is your current base salary, rounded to the nearest hundred dollars?

Sixty-four faculty members responded to this question. The average salary reported among the respondents was $60,990. The median salary was slightly lower at $60,000. The modal salary was $73,300, reported by five faculty members. Three faculty members declined to report their current salary level. Table 1 demonstrates the salary distribution by faculty area of appointment that includes both nine- and 12-months appointment.

TABLE 1: FACULTY SALARY DISTRIBUTION BY AREA OF APPOINTMENT

The mean, or average, is calculated by summing all salaries in an area and dividing the sum by the number of salaries. For example, if 5 salaries are reported for a group, then the 5 salaries are first added, and then divided by 5. ($1,000 + $2000 + $4,000 + $5,000 + $9,000 = $21,000/5 = $4,200).

The median salary is the amount at which exactly 50% of the salaries fall above, and 50% of the salaries fall below. For example, if 5 salaries are reported for a group ($1,000, $2000, $4,000, $5,000, $9,000), then the median salary for that group would be $4,000. If only 4 salaries are reported, ($1,000, $2000, $5,000, $9,000), then the median is calculated by adding the two salaries at the center ($2,000 + $5,000 = $7,000) and then dividing the sum by 2 ($7,000/2 = $3,500). It is important to examine both the mean and the median values because extreme values—in this case, a salary of $9,000—may result in an average that does not accurately reflect the true distribution of the salaries, as indicated by the differences of several thousands of dollars in some of the areas in Table 1.

The mode is defined as the most frequently occurring value in the distribution (in this case, the distribution of salaries among all 64 members who responded to this question).

ll faculty in Agriculture, Food Science and Sustainable systems and Library have 12-month appointment. Division chairs, ans and few additional faculty affiliated to other Divisions may have 12-months appointment and their reported salaries flect salaries for 12 months.

4

1

Respondent Information cont.

The high standard deviations, or average distance of the reported salaries from the area group mean, indicate that the salary levels in several of the groups vary widely; for example, one faculty member in Behavioral and Social Sciences reported a salary of $74,000 at the Assistant Professor level, while the remainder of the salaries reported by Assistant and Associate Professors in that area ranged from $46,000 to $51,200. In these instances, a more accurate indicator of area salary levels may be the median, or the salary amount that falls exactly in the center of the reported salaries (in this example, $49,700). Figure 1 demonstrates the distribution of salaries by quartile, with the median salary levels depicted by the dark horizontal line in the box.

FIGURE 1. The boxplot and whisker diagram above demonstrates that a few faculty members who reported their salaries are earning substantially more than the median salary for their group. Influential outliers are indicated in Math and Science, Agriculture, Food Science, and Sustainable Systems, and Education. Statistically significant outliers were identified in Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1 and in English/LLP. No boxes were created for Mass Communications or Whitney Young because only one faculty member from each program responded to the survey.

Another source of the wide variability among the reported salaries may be accounted for by the academic rank of the faculty who responded to this question. For example, in Mathematics and Science, faculty salaries reported at the Assistant Professor level are quite low, ranging from $42,400 to $47,000, while faculty salaries at the Associate Professor level range from $50,900 to $71,000, thus inflating the mean.

A third source of possible bias in these data may be minimal faculty response from several areas. For example, only one faculty member responded from Whitney Young, and one from Mass Communications, and only two faculty members responded from Fine Arts. These low response rates may in fact be due to the low number of faculty currently serving in these areas, as many areas are understaffed.

Although these data represent the responses of a subset of the faculty members at Kentucky State University, they provide clear evidence that faculty compensation in many areas is inconsistent both within areas and across areas.

5 A box plot graphically depicts groups of numerical data by quartiles. Quartiles are divisions of data values into four groups. The first quartile (25%) is that number at which 25% of the values fall below and 75% of the values fall above. The second quartile (50%) is that number at which 50% of the values fall above, and 50% fall below (the median). Box plots may also have lines extending vertically from the boxes (whiskers) indicating variability outside the upper and lower quartiles. These values are called “outliers.” In this diagram the influential outliers are depicted by circles where their values fall, and the statistically significant outliers are depicted by an asterisk (*) The numbers next to the circles and asterisks refer to the line of data in the spreadsheet where these values can be found.

QUESTION 2: To what extent do you think your current salary is competitive among other comprehensive state universities that are similar to KSU?

Sixty-six of the 67 faculty members (98.5%) responded to this question. Faculty were asked to indicate the extent to which they believed Kentucky State University salaries are competitive with similar institutions on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all competitive) to 4 (extremely competitive). Table 2 demonstrates the distribution of responses.

Sixty of the 66 the faculty respondents (90.9%) indicated that salaries at Kentucky State University are not competitive when compared to the salaries at similar comprehensive state universities. Of the 66 respondents, only 6 (9.1%) felt that Kentucky State University salaries approached comparability. One faculty member declined to respond.

TABLE 2: COMPETITIVENESS OF KSU SALARIES COMPARED TO COMPARABLE INSTITUTIONS

These data clearly indicate that faculty across campus feel that there is a substantial discrepancy between current Kentucky State University salaries and the salaries offered for similar positions at comparable institutions.

[Unabel]

Respondent Information cont.

QUESTION 3: Please describe the knowledge or standard you used, if any, to determine your previous answer. For example, did you compare your current salary to the CUPA-HR standards, the AAUP faculty salary survey data, or another source of information?

Sixty-four of the 67 faculty members (95.5%) responded to this question. Table 3 presents a summary of the sources according to how frequently they were mentioned. Percentages in the table do not sum to 100% because many faculty members mentioned multiple sources of information in their responses.

These data indicate that just over half of the respondents (53%) based their opinions about the competitiveness of Kentucky State University salaries on CUPA-HR standards, which is consistent with previous institutional practice. Other commonly used information sources include the annual AAUP Faculty Salary Survey and other online sources, and comparisons with other institutions.

TABLE 3: SOURCES OF CURRENT MARKET SALARY INFORMATION

…、…

The faculty comments below are reported verbatim from the survey responses. Minor spelling errors have been corrected for clarity.

o CUPA-HR.

o AAUP.

o AAUP faculty salary survey data.

o AAUP data.

o Knowledge comes from researching others similarly positioned (i.e., Chronicle of Higher Education).

o Another source.

o Fresh post doc hired as assist prof on honey bees at UK has a salary of $84,500 while I have much more experience and worked here for 5 years.

o CUPA 2007-2008, CUPA 2011-2012, CUPA 2016-2017, Glassdoor, AAUP faculty salary survey, job postings from other universities.

o Internet Sources.

o CUPA, AAUP, BLS, and personal knowledge of peer salaries around the state.

o Yes, CUPA-HR and self-knowledge/experience.

o I am a 12-month faculty, when I converted my salary to 9-month and compared with the salary of the similar position in my discipline in other universities it is way low.

o I used the CUPA-HR standards for Master's institutions in the field of Business, Management, and Marketing.

o Communications with faculty at other HBU's.

o CUPA-HR.

o I compared my salary to the information on Higheredjobs.com.

o Another source of information.

o CUPA.

o Both of those, plus the Chronicle of Higher Education.

o Discussions and presentations with faculty in similar positions or with similar degrees and experience.

o Higher Ed Jobs.

Respondent Information cont.

o I was faculty at another university before taking this position. My salary is lower in this job.

o CUPA HR, AAUP faculty survey data, similar sized schools in KY & SACS South Central region, other Land Grant HBCUs

o Compared to CUPA-HR and to the salaries of colleagues at other Kentucky publics and state schools in the South.

o The CUPA-HR standards, the AAUP faculty salary survey data, and from friends.

o CUPA.

o CUPA-HR.

o Based on what I know starting salaries are across the state in my field.

o CUPA-HR and Salary.com-Higher Education Salaries.

o Before I started my position I used internet data bases to determine what a competitive salary for my position would be.

o Articles over time. Can't recall the latest one.

o AAUP survey data.

o Personal contacts and knowledge.

o Cupa.

o CUPA-HR.

o Years of service.

QUESTION 4: In what department is your faculty appointment?

Fifty-eight of the 67 faculty members (86.6%) responded to this question. Table 4 presents the distribution of respondents by faculty rank and area. One respondent from English/LLP, one from Library, and one from Agriculture, Food Science, and Sustainable Systems did not report rank.

TABLE 4: FACULTY RESPONDENTS BY REPORTED SCHOOL OR DIVISION

SECTION 2: Salary Levels by Faculty Rank

Questions 5-10 provide information about the salary levels faculty believe are appropriate for each academic rank. Figure 2 presents summary data for Questions 5, 7, and 9 according to the rank of the faculty respondent. Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations of recommended salary levels by rank of respondent. We noticed that the mean salaries for Assistant, Associate, and Full professors reported by Assistant professors (Figure 2 and Table 5) looked strange and were not consistent to the figures reported by Associate and Full professors. We double checked the original data for accuracy but found the reported figures were accurate. We believe that this may be a function of the number of faculty within departments who responded to the survey.

10

Mean Faculty Salary Increase Level Recommendations by Rank

FIGURE 2. Recommended salary levels by academic rank are presented along with the respondents' current mean salaries. Based on the difference between current mean salaries and recommended mean salary levels, Full Professors perceived the greatest deficit in current salaries across rank (between $28,591 and $29,925) while Assistant Professors perceived the least deficit (between -$757 and $13,365).

TABLE 5: SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS BY RANK OF RESPONDENT

SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS

CURRENT MEAN FACULTY SALARIES BY RESPONDENT RANK

<table><tr><td colspan="2">1982.</td><td colspan="2">1983.</td><td colspan="2">1984.</td><td colspan="2">1985.</td><td colspan="2">1986.</td><td colspan="2">1987.</td><td colspan="2">1988.</td><td colspan="2">1989.</td><td colspan="2">1990.</td><td colspan="2">1991.</td><td colspan="2">1992.</td><td colspan="2">1993.</td><td colspan="2">1994.</td><td colspan="2">1995.</td><td colspan="2">1996.</td><td colspan="2">1997.</td><td colspan="2">1998.</td><td colspan="2">1999.</td><td colspan="2">2000.</td><td colspan="2">2001.</td><td colspan="2">2002.</td><td colspan="2">2003.</td><td colspan="2">2004.</td><td colspan="2">2005.</td><td colspan="2">2006.</td><td colspan="2">2007.</td><td colspan="2">2008.</td><td colspan="2">2009.</td><td colspan="2">2010.</td><td colspan="2">2011.</td><td colspan="2">2012.</td><td colspan="2">2013.</td><td colspan="2">2014.</td><td colspan="2">2015.</td><td colspan="2">2016.</td><td colspan="2">2017.</td><td colspan="2">2018.</td><td>2019.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

QUESTION 5: Approximately what annual salary, rounded to the nearest $100, do you think a person with a terminal degree in your field should be paid at the assistant professor level?

Sixty-one of the 67 faculty members (91.0%) responded to this question. Of these, 31 (50.8%) were currently serving as Assistant Professors. Recommended salaries ranged from $50,000 to $105,000. The mean recommended salary for Assistant Professors was $69,445. The median recommended salary was $65,000.

QUESTION 6: For how many years have/did you served at this faculty rank?

Sixty-two of the 67 faculty members (92.5%) responded to this question. Years of service at the Assistant Professor level ranged from 0 to 20. The mean number of years of service was 5.6. The median was 5 years of service.

QUESTION 7: Approximately what annual salary, rounded to the nearest $100, do you think a person with a terminal degree in your field should be paid at the associate professor level?

Fifty-three of the 67 faculty members (79.1%) responded to this question. Of these, 21 (39.6%) were currently serving at the Associate Professor level. Recommended salaries ranged from $53,000 to $120,000. The mean recommended salary for Associate Professors was $79,049. The median recommended salary was $75,000.

（

QUESTION 8: For how many years have/did you served at this faculty rank?

Fifty-five of the 67 faculty members (82.1%) responded to this question. Of these, 22 (40.0%) were currently serving as Associate Professors. Years of service at the Associate Professor level ranged from 0 to 20. The mean number of years of service was 4.8. The median was 3.5 years of service.

QUESTION 9: Approximately what annual salary, rounded to the nearest $100, do you think a person with a terminal degree in your field should be paid at the full professor level?

Fifty-one of the 67 faculty members (76.1%) responded to this question. Of these, 7 faculty members (7.3%) were currently serving as Full Professors. Recommended salaries ranged from $60,000 to $150,000. The mean recommended salary for Full Professors was $93,636. The median recommended salary was $90,000.

QUESTION 10: For how many years have/did you served at this faculty rank?

Forty-nine of the 67 faculty members (73.1%) responded to this question. Of these, 7 faculty members (14.3%) were currently serving as Full Professors. Years of service at the Full Professor level ranged from 0 to 13. The mean number of years of service was 0.8. The median was 0 years of service. The number of years faculty spent at the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Full Professor was unrelated to their recommendations for annual salary levels for all faculty ranks.

SECTION 3: Salary Negotiation

QUESTION 11: Have you been hired as faculty more than once at KSU?

Sixty-three of the 67 faculty members (94.0%) responded to this question. Of these, 9 (14.3%) reported that they had been hired by Kentucky State University more than once. Fifty-four (85.7%) were first-time hires. Four faculty members (6.0%) declined to respond to this question.

QUESTION 12: Thinking about your most recent faculty appointment at KSU, were you allowed to negotiate your starting salary?

Fifty-nine of the 67 faculty members (88.0%) responded to this question. Of these, 5 (8.5%) reported that they had been able to negotiate salary at the time they were hired. Fifty (84.7%) stated that they were not allowed to negotiate. Four faculty members (6.8%) responded that they were unable to remember, and 8 declined to respond to this question.

QUESTION 13: If you negotiated your starting salary, then approximately how much, rounded to the nearest hundred dollars, did your salary increase from the original offer? If you didn't negotiate your starting salary, then please enter "no negotiation."

Fifty-nine of the 67 faculty members (88.0%) responded to this question. Of these, only 5 (8.5%) indicated that they were allowed to negotiate their starting salary, while 50 faculty members (84.7%) reported that they were not allowed to negotiate. Four faculty members (6.8%) responded that they could not remember. Negotiated starting salary increases ranged from $2,500 to $5,000 greater than the originally offered amount.

SEVERAL FACULTY MEMBERS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT SALARY NEGOTIATION:

o “Communication issues with KSU admin[istration] made negotiation impossible.”

o “[I] was told it was not allowed at KSU.”

o “[N]o negotiation, decision was made and offer given one day before start of semester.”

“No negotiation was allowed. I asked to negotiate and was told it was against policy. Since that time, others in my division have been hired and allowed to negotiate.”

o "Never get increased."

13

ACTION 4: Salary Equity

ESTION 14: How frequently should KSU offer cost of living increases?

ty-five of the 67 faculty members (97.0%) responded to this question. Figure 3 presents the distribution of responses. Of se, 36 faculty members (55.4%) felt that cost of living increases should occur annually, with an additional 26.2% of the pondents recommending a cost of living increase at least every other year.

Recommended Frequency of Cost of Living Raises

Other (4.6%) Every 5 Years (1.5%) Every 3 Years (12.3%) Every Other Year (26.2%) Every Year (55.4%)

Every 5 Years (1.5%)

Every 3 Years (12.3%)

Every Other Year (26.2%)

Every Year (55.4%)

GURE 3. Most faculty members felt that cost of living increases should occur either yearly or every other year.

CULTY MEMBERS MADE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The last round of cost of living increase was several years ago.

Every year, if not possible, every other year.

As often as possible, at least every other year.

14

QUESTION 15: Faculty who are more recently hired at KSU sometimes are offered higher salaries than faculty who have worked at KSU for a longer time. To your knowledge, has this happened recently in your department?

Sixty-one of the 67 faculty members (91.0%) responded to this question. Of these, 42 (68.9%) reported that new faculty members have been hired in their departments at higher salaries than current faculty members are earning. Seven faculty members (11.5%) reported that this had not occurred in their area. Thirteen faculty members (21.3%) reported that they did not know whether this had occurred. Five (8.2%) declined to respond to this question.

QUESTION 16: What steps, if any, do you think KSU should take to prevent newly hired faculty from being paid at equal or higher rates than long-time KSU faculty?

Sixty-three faculty of the 67 faculty members (94.0%) responded to this question, while four faculty members (5.0%) declined to respond. Minor spelling corrections were made to provide clarity; otherwise, respondent comments are reported verbatim:

o All faculty salaries should be reviewed frequently and raised as necessary in line with market.

o Number of years at KSU.

o Offer a fair starting wage, and give cost-of-living increases annually.

o Chairs need to establish a protocol of review.

o Equalize pay according to MERIT where accomplishments and contributions can be clearly seen through documentation.

o Increase the other faculty salary as needed.

o Regulating the process; upgrading the rates of longer term serving faculty.

o Make sure that current faculty salaries reach market standards (e.g., current CUPA standards), and that they stay current with cost of living. Faculty should at the very least receive cost of living increases, and those who go above and beyond should be able to receive merit increases, which are part of KSU's policies but are only received by a few. Raises should be based on merit and cost of living, and not on cronyism. In the past we have been told that we are to receive raises, and then nothing comes through. We have been told that tenure and promotion are suspended, but at the same time seen several members of administration and two faculty members receive substantial salary increases. I personally am hoping to see change, but I have been here for some time and have instead seen faculty salaries fall farther and farther below market level. Salary equity is crucial, especially when we are not allowed to hire people into vacancies, and our classes get overloaded and we teach multiple overloads. The longer this continues, the lower our morale, and we lose many very fine colleagues who leave because of these issues.

o I think that a tenure track should be an option for new faculty which does compensate to a certain degree.

o Prioritize salary equity.

o For new faculty hires, why not pay according to qualifications to begin with?

o I am fine to offer higher salary based on merit and negotiation to the competitive faculty. However, there also needs to be fair evaluation of the faculty who have been in KSU for long time. Faculty who have been serving here for long time and are productive, their salary should be raised at the standard CUPA level. It is unfortunate to see salaries of some associate faculty who are productive less than assistant professor in the same discipline.

o KSU should give long-time faculty regular increases in their base salary (provided that they meet or exceed expectations), thereby reducing this problem.

o Administrators and Human Resources should establish a formula for salaries, based on degree status, experience, performance, and number of years in the field.

o I don't think it matters, unless one of faculty member is less productive than the other.

o Increase the pay of current faculty members so everyone's pay scale is up to date.

o Honestly I'm not sure what would be the best route.

o Use scale.

o If a higher rate is needed to attract good faculty, then give raises to bring the long-time faculty up to that rate.

o Long-time employees should receive raises comparable to other universities and to be compensated more than newly hired.

o Annual living increases; accountability for decisions leading to disparities and inequities in pay based on race, gender, experience and service; adjustments made to salaries to accommodate financial lost to employees impacted negatively by these decisions.

Faculty should be recruited and compensated based on merits, e.g. teaching record, service record, publication record. If long-time KSU faculty are tenured but not actively publishing, relatively weak on service, and/or not earning as strong teaching reviews, then they should rightfully be paid lower than newly recruited faculty with stronger credentials. This is how KSU can improve its student retention and graduation rates long term. Invest in good new faculty.

o Full transparency. Names, appointments, ranks, salaries should be published, on the KSU website (there are many precedents for this and it is public information).

o VPAA and President should follow policy when making hire recommendations to the Board of Regents, and conduct thorough background checks, not recommend any promotion from previous rank at another institution to a higher rank at KSU; not recommend and grant Tenure to new hires except in the case of VPAA and Deans ad prescribed by policy; review ranks and salaries of current faculty within hire units for a fair perspective.

It's more complicated than that. I don't think this is something we should try to "prevent." Faculty whom we want to recruit will naturally be offered more money than some faculty already on campus. We need to make competitive offers for faculty we want, and we do need more good faculty of color. I do think, though, that current faculty should be paid at a rate somewhere in the ballpark of what their colleagues in the same fields are being paid at our sister institutions. And we should not have to take effective pay cuts by not having COLA raises and by paying so much in insurance.

o Equity raises at the end of contract year, as happened at my previous institution.

o Upgrade existing salaries.

o Continual salary compression reviews.

o Reinstate merit system, give cost of living adjustments regularly.

Salary Equity cont.

o Pay long-term loyal faculty adequately.

o Annual review of salaries with cost of living increases as a minimum

o I do not think this is a problem, IF CoL increases, merit pay raises, and some negotiation opportunities remain competently and consistently available to all faculty.

o Raise long term employees salary or pay what long term employees are making

o Steps should be taken

o Examine existing salaries first so a "reasonable" offer can be made. Then try to raise salary for existing faculty to the same range.

o Require multiple level review and approval. Establish a HR policy to this effect.

o KSU should give long-time faculty regular pay raises (provided that they meet or exceed expectations) to minimize this problem.

o Based on position.

o Set up standard base salary based on the rank and discipline. We should do the same for administration position as well.

o Obviously start to make-up to those faculty that have seniority a more relevant market value salary.

o Set policy and FOLLOW IT.

This is not easy to do since market rate goes up faster than the cost of living increase. Furthermore, if the University wants to hire divers and highly qualified faculty, it should pay them according to the market rate.

One solution would be for the University to adjust its pay ranges with the market rate by the discipline every few years and build that into the cost of living increase.

Salary inversion is an issue that exists in the degree fields that are in high demand such as business and accounting. It is difficult, but necessary for morale to at least acknowledge this issue and make some adjustments to current faculty salaries.

o Pay what must be paid to procure new, highly qualified faculty, but focus on quickly bringing the experienced faculty up to an appropriate level.

o Determine all salaries based on education and professional experience.

o Bring current employees to current standards.

If everyone is paid their worth, then it won't be an issue. Once salaries are raised to an appropriate level and we continue to get cost of living and/or merit pay, that should not have to happen.

o Balance budgets to make sure that all faculty are being paid competitively. Salaries are a joke across the board. If the university is trying to get new faculty, they have to offer salaries that the new hire wouldn't scoff at. Unfortunately, anyone newly minted PhD with six figure debt would laugh at every salary at this school except the salaries of white professors who became chairs of their departments. Since the university hasn't raised salaries in years, it's inevitable that new hires would be offered more than current faculty.

o Move existing faculty up to competitive salaries if they have shown adequate merit.

o None. It should depend on qualification rather than seniority.

o Base pay raises to stay competitive, but it is not possible as starting salary often moves faster than raises.

o Have annual cost of living increases also applied to the rank/discipline ranges. Then long term faculty who fall out the bottom of the range would have to be raised more.

o If the new hire is hired in at a competitive salary, then every professor in the department should be (1) brought up immediately to a matching amount, and then (2) increased beyond that to reflect their years of service.

o Should be left between the Department and candidate. KSU does not need to regulate this, other than to possibly raise salaries for long serving faculty who have demonstrated merit.

Survey comparative salaries, and pay per merit

o More discretion given to the department Chair or Dean rather than it being mostly an HR call.

o Hire an ethical and competent HR director and keep an ethical and competent admin in place for more than 18 months. Stop the friends with benefits financial practices that continue to plague this university.

• Apart from the readily evident views about the need for substantial equity increases, regular cost of living increases, and support for merit-based salary increases, several themes arise from these comments:
• There is a strong sense among faculty that salary advantages have been provided to some individuals for reasons other than rank, merit, or cost of living. Several comments directly mention issues such as “cronyism,” “friends with benefits,” and “cliques.” These issues are perceived as ongoing problems and should be addressed.
• Other comments call for clear and consistent policies for all, which are actually followed by administrators who are in the position to grant salary increases.
• Merit increases should be based on empirically documented achievement, at levels that are consistent across campus.
• Policies and procedures in place for hiring faculty and administrators with rank and tenure should be followed by administration. Per the KSU Faculty Handbook, no administrative candidate below the level of Vice President of Academic Affairs should be hired with rank or tenure in an academic unit without following policies related to the vetting of that candidate by unit faculty. Faculty should have more input into administrative hiring proceedings, and administration should be guided by faculty opinion in the interests of shared governance.

QUESTION 17: To what extent would you say that KSU salaries reflect equity for the number of years you have been in rank?

Fifty-five of the 67 faculty members (82.1%) responded to this question. Of these, 30 faculty members (54.5%) reported that their salaries were not at all equitable for the number of years in their rank, while an additional 19 (34.5%) reported that their salaries only somewhat reflected their years in rank. Six faculty members (10.9%) reported that their salaries moderately reflected years in rank. Twelve of the total 67 faculty members (17.9%) declined to respond to this question.

FACULTY COMMENTS INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:

o Vis-a-vis the university, and not the nation

o I am currently at 2007-2008 CUPA level. I have never received a merit increase, despite measurably exceeding expectations year after year.

o Have not worked long enough to fill a bubble above. Hired last August (2017).

o I don't know the salaries well enough to answer this.

o I have been a professional for 35 years but only after CAFSSS was given rank.

Employees at random who are just starting at the University, without experience and sometimes the credentials or work to do are often paid more than employees with experience in the field, longevity with the University, many credentials and an overwhelming amount of expectations for their program areas.

o Equity in rank has been moderate, however, not for the current position 1 am in.

o I have not compared salaries with many people of the same rank who have worked here longer.

o Due to years of service, and holding multiple jobs and administrative jobs.

o I can only base it on my experience. It may not be the same for others.

o In our area there was only one case of inequity. All others have been treated the same.

Another professor in my department in YEAR ONE is earning significantly more than myself and others in this department after six to ten years of service. There is no way this is equitable.

QUESTION 18: To what extent would you say that KSU salaries reflect gender equity?

Forty of the 67 faculty members (59.7%) responded to this question. Of these, 13 (32.5%) were male, while 22 (55.0%) were female. Of the 40 respondents, 27 (67.5%) felt that KSU salaries either did not, or only somewhat reflected gender equity. Thirteen faculty members (32.5%) felt that moderate or complete salary equity by gender exists at Kentucky State University. Twenty-seven faculty members (40.3% of the total 67 respondents) declined to respond to this question. Table 6 presents a crosstabulation of the distribution of responses for perceived gender salary equity by respondent gender.

TABLE 6: PERCEIVED SALARY EQUITY BY GENDER

FACULTY COMMENTS INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:

o Again, this depends on who you are. Some people receive preferential treatment.

o I have anecdotal evidence that KSU salaries reflect gender equity.

o I have observed men receiving higher salaries and been told that they deserve more.

o Men are giving a boost in salaries regardless of their abilities to do the job effectively.

o I have only compared salary with one other faculty member of the opposite gender, our salaries were the same.

o I am paid least even though my years of service are comparable.

o Almost completely. With other variables adjusted for, this does not seem to be a major issue.

o Males make more than females.

o I have anecdotal evidence that KSU salaries reflect gender equity.

o Overall chair salaries are significantly less for female chairs; in my experience males in my same position were always paid more.

o There is no difference between males and females in same rank/discipline in our area. Don't know about others.

2

Salary Equity cont.

QUESTION 19: To what extent would you say that KSU salaries reflect racial equity?

Thirty-one of 67 faculty members (46.3%) responded to this question. Table 7 presents the distribution of the responses by reported race or ethnicity. Of the 31 faculty members who provided a value on the scale 13 (41.9%) were African American, 12 (38.7%) were Caucasian, 3 (9.7%) were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2 (6.5%) declined to respond.

Of the 31 faculty members who responded, 20 (64.6%) responded not at all or somewhat, indicating that salaries at Kentucky State University are perceived by these faculty to reflect racial disparity, while 11 respondents (35.5%) indicated that there is moderate or complete salary equity. Thirty-six faculty members (53.7% of the 67 total respondents) declined to respond to this question.

TABLE 9: PERCEIVED SALARY EQUITY BY RACE/ETHNICITY

COMMENTS FROM 11 FACULTY MEMBERS INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING: o It is clear that one race above all is preferred for the highest tier jobs on campus.

o It is clear that one race above all is preferred for the highest tier jobs on campus.

I certainly feel that in the past KSU administration has offered most opportunities for advancement to colleagues of color, to the detriment of the university in several instances. I know of several very deserving people who have experienced salary discrimination.

o I have anecdotal evidence that KSU salaries reflect racial equity.

o You have to be kidding.

o White Men and women make more salary for less experience, credentials and ability to do their jobs; people of color are considered subservient and not given opportunities to advance in positions, negotiate salaries and/or receive pay increases to accommodate for inequities.

This varies unit by unit and a reasoned opinion cannot be offered until such time as HR provides requested data to the Salary Compensation Committee and BASC.

Please see my answer to #16. In our department's recent hiring practices, the salaries did not reflect racial equity, but black faculty are in demand nationwide, so that makes sense. It's not an issue that some faculty are paid more than others, so long as no one is being underpaid, which is what's happening now.

o I have only compared salary with one other faculty member of a different race/ethnicity, our salaries were the same.

o Perhaps a slight advantage for African Americans.

o I have anecdotal evidence that KSU salaries reflect racial equity.

o In the School of Business, there does not appear disparity by race.

QUESTION 20: Thinking about salary equity based on demonstrated teaching ability, to what extent would you say that KSU salaries reflect merit equity? That is, to what extent do salaries demonstrate recognition of high performance for each of the following areas?

Table 8 presents the response distribution for this set of items pertaining to teaching activities. The number of faculty members who declined to answer each item ranged from 15 to 18 respondents.

TABLE 8: SALARY EQUITY AND TEACHING ABILITY

Teaching ability demonstrated by the use of technology in the classroom

Teaching ability demonstrated by curriculum development

Teaching ability demonstrated by student course evaluations

Teaching ability demonstrated by innovative teaching techniques

Teaching ability demonstrated by grant writing to support teaching and learning

Teaching ability demonstrated by obtaining grant funding to support teaching and learning

Teaching ability demonstrated by experiential learning opportunities for students

Teaching ability demonstrated by proficiency in the use of Blackboard, Campus Labs, and other resources

Salary Equity cont.

THESE FINDINGS DEMONSTRATE THAT MOST FACULTY RESPONDENTS FELT THAT THEIR VARIOUS TEACHING SKILLS HAD EITHER NO IMPACT OR LITTLE IMPACT ON THEIR SALARIES. FACULTY COMMENTS INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:

o Effective teaching ability!

o Skill and productivity make no difference in my experience. Most of us have been paid the minimum for our rank, and kept there for years.

o I don't have any knowledge about raises and the reasons for them. I do know that “merit” is not easy to measure in my field.

The hiring and evaluation system is set up to promote and reward those faculty members by providing the necessary resources. This includes supporting them with opportunities to teach, write grants, and have staffing to advance their careers. Those opportunities are not equitable and the evaluations are not accurate.

These opinions are admittedly based on speculation and cannot be verified in relationship to campus-wide data. However, anecdotally, there seems to problems in this area. Chairs have such varying criteria for merit evaluations that a data driven analysis is challenging.

o There is no merit based salary increase throughout my stay at KSU.

There is no evidence (or I don't have any information) that indicates any of the above demonstrated teaching abilities are considered when salary raises are considered. Basically we have not had merit raise for many years. But it would be very important for the University to recognize high performance as stated above for merit equity. There are many innovative, high-performing faculty whose salaries are not nearly close to the published salary ranges.

o Salary adjustments have not been given based on merit as I ever recall in the past 18 years.

o Salary adjustments have been made equitably across the board.

o I do not have enough information to answer. I do know that I have the lowest salary in my department and I am doing far more than my peers in regards to improving student learning.

o Merit salary increases have not yet been implemented at KSU.

o Merit is only rewarded by promotions, which bring raises. Otherwise it doesn't seem to matter as long as you do enough to avoid being fired.

My pay, nor others in my department, has ever been modified due to merit. Therefore, the response to these questions can only be Not At All.

o I have never seen this demonstrated. The pay scale is determined by level of friendship and clique affiliation.

QUESTION 21: Thinking now about creative and scholarly productivity and research activities, to what extent would you say that KSU salaries reflect merit equity in the following areas?

Table 9 presents the response distribution for this set of items pertaining to research and scholarly activities. The number of faculty members who declined to answer each item varied, but ranged between 21 and 41 of the 67 total respondents.

TABLE 9: SALARY EQUITY AND SCHOLARLY PRODUCTIVITY

Music/vocal/theater performance

Art/sculpture/photography exhibitions

Creative writing/journalism/non-academic publications

Scholarly publications in peer-reviewed academic journals

Scholarly publications in trade journals

Scholarly books/book chapters

Significant contributions to projects with multiple writers

Webcasts/podcasts/electronically transmitted presentations

Presenting workshops/trainings for members of the field

Invited presentations/speeches/performances/exhibitions

Peer reviewed presentations/speeches/performances/exhibitions

Poster presentations at professional venues

25 Declined, Total Number

Writing grants to fund research and scholarly activities

Receiving funding for submitted grants

Managing or supervising a lab

Providing research infrastructure such as equipment or facilities

Obtaining scholarships, internships, or other opportunities for students or colleagues

CONSISTENT WITH FACULTY RESPONDENT OPINIONS THAT TEACHING ACTIVITIES WERE NOT REALLY RELATED TO THEIR SALARY LEVELS, THE RESPONSES FOR THIS QUESTION INDICATE THAT RESPONDENTS FELT SIMILARLY ABOUT THEIR SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES AND THEIR SALARY LEVELS. FACULTY COMMENTS INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:

o I am a productive scholar, and these activities have made absolutely NO difference in my salary. Once when I had received a grant and asked to be paid the $1,500 for submitting a successful grant proposal (this was in KSU's policies, but to my knowledge nobody has ever received this award), I was told "nobody asked you to do that." My response was that nobody had to ask, which should certainly be worth consideration, but this is just one example of how policies for compensating faculty have not been followed.

There is no evidence (or I don't have any information) that indicates any of the above demonstrated creative and scholarly abilities are considered when salary raises are considered. The PI and senior personnel of grants usually receive summer salary or stipend or release time from the grant.

o I don't recognize pay adjustments being made for any of these activities unless it is in conjunction with promotion.

o Merit salary increases have not yet been implemented at KSU.

o Only rewarded at promotion.

o No work that our department has ever done has ever earned us any pay raises. Therefore, the answer can only be Not At All.

QUESTION 22: Thinking now about service activities, to what extent would you say that KSU salaries reflect merit equity for the following?

Table 10 presents the distribution of the responses to this series of items pertaining to service activities. The number of faculty members who declined to answer each item varied, but ranged between 13 and 18 of the 67 total respondents.

TABLE 10: SALARY EQUITY AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES

Service on departmental committees

Chairing or directing committees

Service on university-wide committees

Service on Faculty Senate

Chairing or directing a faculty senate committee

Chairing or directing a university-wide committee

Advising or managing a student organization

Serving at university functions

Serving as an officer of a professional organization

Belonging to appropriate professional organizations

Serving the community in a capacity requiring your professional skills

Serving in an international organization or working group

Serving in a national organization or working group

Serving in a regional or state organization or working group

AS WITH THE PREVIOUS TWO QUESTIONS, FACULTY RESPONDENTS LARGELY FELT THAT THEIR SERVICE ACTIVITIES HAD LITTLE IMPACT ON SALARY LEVEL. FACULTY COMMENTS INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:

I have an extensive record of service at KSU. I am still paid the absolute minimum for my rank, and that minimum is at 2007-2008 CUPA standards.

The above service activities are not considered for salary raises. Some faculty may receive stipend or release time working on some ad hoc committees or performing certain services. The reward for good work is more work. Occasionally a stipend will be given for taking on an extra responsibility, but serving on additional committees is generally not compensated.

o Merit salary increases have not yet been implemented at KSU.

o Only awarded by promotion.

o Even after five years of “Exceeding Expectations” my pay has not changed due to my service. To my knowledge, the same is true of other faculty in my department. Therefore, the answer can only be Not At All.

SECTION 5: Recommended Overload and Summer Salaries

QUESTION 23: How much per graduate-level course do you think faculty should be compensated for overload pay?

Twenty-nine of the 67 faculty members (43.3%) responded to this question with actual dollar amounts per course or per credit hour. The mean recommended compensation for teaching an overload course at the graduate level was $3,974. The median was slightly lower at $3,600. The modal amount was $5,000 per course. Figure 4 presents the distribution of these responses.

Recommended Compensation for Overload Graduate Courses

FIGURE 4: Recommended salaries ranged from $300 to $10,000 per course. Twenty-seven of the 67 total faculty members (40.3%) declined to respond.

AN ADDITIONAL 11 FACULTY MEMBERS (16.4%) RESPONDED WITH THE SUGGESTIONS LISTED BELOW:

o See what other universities do. Do not reinvent the wheel.

o 15% of base salary.

o 6 credit hours.

o 7% of salary.

o 10% of gross.

o It depends on the size of the class. If the class size in big enough, 3 graduate classes should be a full load. More than that should be compensated.

29

o Same as pay for summer school.

o 1000/credit hour, not a % based on current salary, which disproportionately increases higher salaries.

o Should be part of their teaching load calculation, same as undergraduate.

o $4500 to $5000 (At my prior institution, I earned $3000 per undergraduate course overload, and that was almost a decade ago).

QUESTION 24: How much per undergraduate-level course do you think faculty should be compensated for overload pay?

Thirty-eight of the 67 faculty members (56.7%) responded with actual dollar amounts per course or per credit hour. The mean recommended compensation for teaching an overload course at the undergraduate level was $3,121. The median was slightly lower at $2,850. The modal amount was $3,000 per course. Figure 5 presents the distribution of these responses.

Recommended Compensation for Overload Undergraduate Courses

FIGURE 5. As with the graduate level overloads, recommended salaries for undergraduate overloads ranged from $300 to $10,000 per course. Twenty-nine faculty members (43.3%) of the total 67 respondents) declined to respond.

TWELVE FACULTY MEMBERS RESPONDED WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:

o See what other universities do. do not reinvent the wheel.

o 10% of base salary.

o 6 credit hours.

審

Recommended Overload and Summer Salaries cont.

o 5% of salary.

o 2400 per course, commensurate with adjunct pay per class at sister institutions. Why would I overload here if I need money and I can adjunct elsewhere that pays better? I know many colleagues who feel (and do) similarly. o 10% of gross.

o Over 12 credits.

o Same as pay for summer school.

No salary differential between teaching grad & undergrad courses, and I teach both. 1000/credit hour, not a % based on current salary, which disproportionately increases higher salaries.

o 0, overload should not happen.

o 1/8th of their annual salary.

o $1,000 minimum per semester for instructor rank

QUESTION 25: How much per summer course do you think faculty should be compensated?

Thirty-seven of the 67 faculty members (55.2%) responded with actual dollar amounts per course or per credit hour. Twenty-three of the 67 total faculty members (34.5%) declined to respond.

The mean recommended compensation for teaching a summer course was $3,534. The median was slightly lower at $3,000. The modal amount was also $3,000 per course. Figure 6 presents the distribution of these responses.

Recommended Summer Salary Per Three Credit Course

FIGURE 6. The recommended salary for summer courses ranged again from $300 to $10,000 per course.

SEVEN FACULTY MEMBERS RESPONDED WITH THE SUGGESTIONS LISTED BELOW:

o See what other universities do. do not reinvent the wheel.

o 10% of base for undergrad, 15% of base for grad.

o 6 credit hours.

o Depends on length, credit hours etc.

o I'm 12 month appointment, does not apply.

o 8 to 10% of base pay per course; sister institutions in KY average 9% of base per course.

o Same as overload course.

QUESTION 26: What percentage should faculty receive as a cost of living increase?

Sixty-three of the 67 faculty members (94.0%) responded to this question. Figure 7 presents the distribution of these responses. Of these, 28 faculty members (43.8%) indicated that cost of living increases should be in the amount of 2% to 3%, while another 12 faculty members (18.7%) indicated that increases should be 4% or 5%. Four of the 67 total faculty members (5.8%) declined to respond.

FIGURE 7. Recommended percentage for annual faculty cost of living increase.

THE 23 FACULTY MEMBERS (35.9%) WHO RESPONDED "OTHER" MADE THE RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED BELOW:

o At least equal to the Cost-Of-Living Adjustment (COLA) as determined by the Social Security Administration.

o Depend on CPI.

Recommended Overload and Summer Salaries cont.

o At least equal to the rate of inflation.

o Increase should be based on the yearly rate of inflation.

o This should be dependent on inflation and other factors that determine cost of living in Kentucky.

O 7%

o Tied to inflation.

o Base on COLA assessment.

o Currently five percent since we haven't had one in so long.

o Comparable to national averages.

o Use the national reported COL increase for Soc. Sec. and other similar programs.

o Increases should be based on the annual U.S. inflation rate.

o An amount equal to the federal COLA.

o 5%, only be given to those under $45,000 with 9 month contract.

o Depends on the state of the economy.

o 5%, unless someone just received a large raise or they are already being wayyyy overpaid.

o It depends on the increase in the cost of living.

o Should be tied to inflation or consumer price index.

o Change in cost of living.

o Depends on the actual cost of living as determined by federal government.

o 2% with additional if it is justified by regional cost of living increases.

o Base it on actual cost of living data.

QUESTION 27: What percentage should faculty receive as a merit-based increase on their annual performance evaluation? Sixty-one of the 67 faculty members (91.0%) responded to this question. Figure 8 presents the distribution of responses. Twenty faculty members (29.8%) recommended an amount of 5% for merit increases awarded with yearly evaluations. Sixteen faculty members (26.2%) recommended a 3% increase, while an additional 11 (18.0%) recommended a 2% increase. Six of the total 67 faculty members (9.0%) declined to respond.

Recommended Percentage Increase for Merit Pay

FIGURE 8. Most faculty members who responded to this question felt that merit pay increases should be 5% annually.

NINE FACULTY MEMBERS RESPONDED WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED BELOW:

This should depend on measurable impact or contribution. A presentation at a local meeting is not the same as a presentation at a national or international meeting. Service on a KSU committee is not the same as service on an international or national committee. Local activities are valuable, but meetings or activities at larger venues may be more impactful.

o I do not trust the evaluation of faculty merit by those outside of a department.

With current Chairs and Deans in place such evaluations would have to be vetted by a university-wide Committee similar to the Tenure and Promotion Committee. Otherwise, it is a formula for continued discrimination.

0 3~5%

o Varies with level of merit, eh?

o There should be a merit pool of money that is distributed to those who have met the requirements for merit pay.

o Depends on what is measured - and the validity of the measurement.

o Depends on their evaluation.

o This should vary based upon level of service, scholarship and teaching evaluations.

SECTION 6: Respondent Information

QUESTION 28: In what year were you hired?

Sixty-one of the 67 faculty members (91.0%) responded to this question. Figure 9 presents the distribution of these responses. The mean year of hire for these respondents was 2007, while the median was 2007. The modal year of hire was 2017, during which 9 faculty respondents reported that they joined Kentucky State University. Seven faculty members declined to respond to this question.

Faculty Date of Most Recent Hire

FIGURE 9. Year of hire ranged from 1976 to 2018, with a relatively large number of reported hires occurring in 2017 (9 faculty), 2007 (8 faculty), and 2015 (6 faculty).

QUESTION 29: For how many years have you been a faculty member at KSU?

Sixty-four of the 67 faculty members (96.0%) responded to this question. Figure 10 presents the distribution of these data. The mean number of years of service was 9.3 years, with a median of 10 years of service, and a mode of 1 year.

Faculty Date of Most Recent Hire

FIGURE 10. Ten faculty members served at Kentucky for a year or less at the time of this survey. The cluster of new hires from 2014 to 2018 largely represents replacements for faculty who either quit, retired, or were released from the university, although many areas are still understaffed.

37

QUESTION 30: At what rank were you hired?

Sixty-four of the 67 faculty members (96.0%) responded to this question. Figure 11 presents the distribution of responses. Seven faculty members declined to respond.

Of the 64 faculty respondents, most (54.7%) were hired at the Assistant Professor level, while another 19 (29.7%) joined Kentucky State University as visiting or adjunct faculty, lecturers, or instructors. Faculty hired at these levels are not expected to share in advising or service activities. This practice unduly burdens the tenured and tenure-track faculty by forcing them to take additional service responsibilities and/or teach overloads to maintain compliance with SACSCOC and the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education standards.

Faculty Rank at Time of Hire

Adjuct, Lecturer, Instructor (12.5%)

FIGURE 11. Most faculty members reported being hired as Assistant Professors, although 19 reported being hired as adjuncts, lecturers, instructors, or visiting professors.

QUESTION 31: What is your current appointment?

Sixty-one faculty members responded to this question. Figure 12 presents the distribution of these results. Forty-seven faculty members (77.0%) were currently in either 9 month or 12-month tenure track positions. Six of the 67 total faculty members (8.9%) declined to respond to this question.

FIGURE 12. Most respondents held tenure track positions.

Respondent Information cont.

QUESTION 32: Which best describes your tenure status?

Fifty-nine of the 67 faculty members (88.1%) responded to this question. Of these, 26 faculty member respondents (44.1%) currently held tenure, while 25 respondents (42.4%) are in tenure-track positions. Eleven respondents (18.6%) are in non-tenure track positions. Eight of the 67 total faculty members (11.9%) declined to respond to this question. Figure 13 presents the distribution of these results.

Faculty Member Tenure Status

FIGURE 13. Most faculty member respondents were either tenured or on tenure track.

QUESTION 33: Which best describes you?

Fifty-eight faculty members responded to this question. Figure 14 presents the distribution of these results. Twenty faculty members (34.4%) identified their race/ethnicity as African American or other African descent, while 31 faculty member respondents (53.4%) identified their race/ethnicity as Caucasian. Twelve of the total 67 faculty members (17.9%) declined to respond to this question.

Faculty Member Race/Ethnicity

FIGURE 14. Faculty member respondent self-reported race/ethnicity. No faculty reported as non-white Hispanic or Native American. One faculty member reported as mixed/multiple race or ethnicity.

QUESTION 34: Are you male or female?

Fifty-seven of the 67 faculty members (85.1%) responded to this question. Of these, 30 (52.6%) were female and 27 (47.4%) were male. Ten of the 67 total faculty members (14.9%) declined to respond to this question.

[Unabel]

ECTION 7: Faculty Comments

QUESTION 35: Are there any comments you would like to make about other compensation issues we have not mentioned?

Disparity in salaries between female faculty members with terminal degrees versus male faculty members who finish terminal degrees after hire.

The process of hiring and compensation, you should be overseen by KSU president; lower rank administration at departments offer very unequal salaries and cover it up by arguing that the other faculty "negotiated" to silence any complaint.

When considering our comparable institutions, we should stay away from comparing ourselves only with our sister HBCUs. I believe that in the past this has been used as a way to justify why faculty should be paid at a different and much lower level than faculty at other institutions in our region. My field's professional organization does a very good job of examining the relationships between factors such as race, sex, and other demographic variables. This organization reports that salaries of African American faculty in my field earn approximately $5,000/year more than faculty of other races, yet KSU faculty are tragically underpaid. Several years ago, when a colleague and I were discussing salaries, that person remarked, "we don't need to 'Jim Crow' ourselves." This is especially the case when we are trying to attract African American colleagues who can demand (and receive) substantially higher salaries elsewhere.

o Percentage-based raises will only exacerbate current salary discrepancies.

We lack resources! The university could engage in fundraising efforts to expand the resource base - by reaching out more, by marketing aggressively, by involving all alumni, faculty, staff, and the community. The current administration is showing a lot of promise. The mere fact of sending out this survey indicates good intent, and I applaud that! We need to be able to sustain ourselves, and we can. Let us join forces to make a positive difference!

o Revise KSU's 2012 CUPA salary to 2018 level first in each Division/Discipline. Provide reasonable raise to the faculty who were hired before 2012, are competent but have not received any raise, Provide raise to them at least at KSU's 2012 CUPA level. Give additional raise (5% every year) to faculty who brings significant amount of competitive grants and create stipends for students. Provide cost of living every year minimum 1%. Reward and punish to those faculty who are meritorious or vice versa based on annual performance evaluation.

o Faculty should receive compensation according to grant proposals that are successfully funded. The compensation should be a specific fraction of the Indirect Costs awarded with the grant.

o Raises should be given to faculty members who earn their doctorate, or other certifications.

o I appreciate the survey - it shows effort on behalf of the University.

o They are unfair.

38

o I was denied promotion by the university TP committee when I first applied, even though I was unanimously recommended by my department. That was in about 2007. Since then, I have received very few raises, none for the past 3 years, and my standard of living has declined severely due to increases in the cost of living. The university should realize that when faculty are treated as disposable or not valuable, the faculty member's willingness to go the extra mile or to speak positively about the institution is not great. I teach many freshman courses in a field where students are not well prepared for college, and it is a constant struggle to remain positive when the administration threatens us with our DFW rate and never asks us what should be done to improve student performance. Instead, outside "retention experts" are hired at extremely high salaries. We are perceived as the enemy.

o In my field, I am below an incoming assistant professor. My Extension appointment made a faculty position unavailable until CAFSSS was created.

o Faculty salaries at the low end should be increased significantly. KSU is wasting enormous dollars on new unnecessary administrators. The students are noticing. I overheard a group of students a couple weeks back complaining about how KSU seems to be making up new titles for new administrators, while raising tuition significantly and firing popular professors.

o I wish the university had been competent to negotiate salary when I was hired. It was not.

The DOFA chair discriminates extensively between academic disciplines relating to part time salaries and refuses to even recommend equitable part time compensation to a retired Associate Professor, Doctorate and only KSU employee qualified to teach Elem Art Education, 33 years of full-time service. He makes less than non-terminal degree part time Music employers. DOFA chair hired new "Visiting Artists" at $48,000 and $50,000 while tenure track Assistant Professors (who were vetted via an extensive nationwide/year-long search) made $44,000 for four years of stellar performance (and hired away for obvious reasons). (2) Chair salaries across campus are inequitable. (3) The current Faculty Regent received a 116% salary increase last year, was named Chair, and as such approves his own divisional budget as Regent. (4) The single most significant contributor to university salary inequity is the continuing practice of hiring with full tenure and promotion to full Professor, contrary to policy and undercutting the tenure and promotion process.

o All are covered, and a sad state of affairs.

o Salary inequity exists. A tenured Associate Professor in a large discipline should earn more than $51,000 annually at year 10.

o To be simple: Equal pay and make it work! create a standard salary chart based on the rank, discipline, and years of service. Also, please do the same for staff as well.

o I realize the University is trying to remedy this situation as best they can but, you will still continue to lose quality faculty because they will have no other choice but to seek employment elsewhere due to the substandard salaries.

o I find a large number of my fellow faculty have a overblown opinion of their worth. I also find these to be the biggest complainers of compensation. If I wasn't satisfied with my compensation, I would leave.

o University of Kentucky is an 1862 Land Grant University while we are an 1890 Land Grant University. Our college of ag functions in research, extension and teaching as does U.K. and we have the same expectations as U.K. faculty, but are paid, on average, $25,000.00 less per year. This seems to be acceptable to everyone. To me, however, it is NOT acceptable, because we should not be willing to accept lower pay than our Land Grant counterpart 30 minutes down the road from us just because we're the 1890s Land Grant Program.

Salaries at KSU are not the lowest in the state, but they always have been inequitable. Most (not all) of the salaries in our department are $20,000 - $30,000 below what professionals with our education and experience would make in the community. Of course, we all recognize that some faculty are most qualified than others, so some could gain employment elsewhere, while others could not (despite their claims). Also, over the years, some faculty have been allowed to negotiate their salaries, while that door has been firmly closed for others. Then, under the last administration, changes were made in the name of racial equity for a few faculty - not many - based on individual negotiations and relationships, and the discrepancies and hurt feelings grew, across campus. We have lost excellent faculty, over the years, due to this problem and we need to deal with it.

I hope that the outcome of the survey will be an increase in long-term faculty's salaries rather than a reduction in new faculty salaries. If we cut new faculty salaries, we could lose them and be left with the alt-right, 80% white faculty we currently have, which makes the university an anomaly among HBCUs.

o I have brought in over $1.1 million in competitive outside funding. I believe that faculty should be given financial incentives for bringing in outside funding to the university. It is common for other research institutions to award a bonus to faculty who are awarded grants.

o Change in status happened in 2012 without any consideration for past service. It is difficult to answer some of these questions based on that issue. Rank and salary were not adjusted when that happened based on past service to the university. That needs to be addressed before we can we can balance compensation in this department.

o KSU faculty salaries are profoundly demoralizing. There have been no raises for nine years. Rank/discipline ranges have not been adjusted for 12 years. We feel abused and forgotten.

o I am pleased to hear Dr. Brown's comments about potential raises. However, in addition to increases with rank changes, all faculty, and especially in my department, are long overdue for raises in general, and at the least, professors who have been here for many years should be brought current to pay for new hires in the same department. Then, the raises for rank increases should apply after that has been achieved.

Question 36: Is there anything you would like to say about any topic not addressed in this survey?

o In August, the president boasted about KSU's being the most diverse HBCU in the nation. Then he introduced his resoundingly non-diverse cabinet. The administration seems anything but color-blind.

o Unfairness and inability to report grievances to respective dean when spouse is the chairman of the division/department where the grievance arises from.

o It would be helpful to many faculty, staff, and students if there were better communication from Academic Affairs. I have heard quite a few people say that it is difficult to get responses, or that meetings are often cancelled. Another communication issue is the way that KSU news and announcements are now handled. We used to be able to just scroll down on the web page to see all the announcements, but now things are going out in emails that go into clutter or junk mail, and people don't get news as they should. The current policy of not publishing anything that is not submitted by Monday afternoon really inhibits communication about things that may come up on short notice. For example, I receive information from several sources where webinars are announced, and I would customarily share them through the public announcements. Now I am unable to do this, and I believe that opportunities are being missed because the word doesn't get out in time. Making people click on links to read things is likely to make them scroll past without bothering to click. Please don't make it harder to communicate with colleagues and students.

Page. 202 of 276

Faculty Comments cont.

Let not the change in administration affect progress. Let us abide by the promises made to faculty when they were hired, even if that happened during the tenure of a previous administration. That is the primary way to attract and retain talented and hard-working faculty who can bring positive change. It is sad when a word given during hire is not kept prompting someone to look for other options.

o Conduct annual evaluation of Chairs and Deans by their faculty. Remove chairs who have not transformed their programs and produced competitive workforce, have not increased substantially enrollment and graduation rate. Don't allow chairs to continue to serve in a unit for more than 5 years who are not effective. Chairs should be rotated by giving chance to other capable faculty within the divisions. Ensure fair, transparent and competitive hiring practice. Encourage and recognize faculty who have been actively involved and provided outstanding professional service to the campus. Establish annual awards for outstanding faculty within each college. Encourage 9-month faculty to write grants, provide research seed money and additional incentives to them. Institutionalize research more aggressively within the university. There are many agencies who intend to fund HBCUs. We need to tap them. Make every administrative position's job description transparent and make them accountable. Organize summer faculty retreat for teaching faculty's professional and pedagogical development by training them about cultural pedagogy, new teaching methods, active learning, integration of technology, research and critical thinking modules in classroom. Expand study abroad program. Make university committees effective by having meetings periodically.

o Faculty with split appointments (teaching/research/extension) should be evaluated by different criteria than full-time teaching faculty.

I wish that the UNV courses and Student Success programs would do more to instill a better idea of the necessity of work and study habits in students. Many of our students have never had to read book chapters or write essays, and they are not aware of the time it takes to complete assignments, or of the focus required to learn material. I think that administrators would be shocked to observe a typical freshman English classroom, in which most students are not paying any attention at all.

Please consider the grant funding and national recognition that Extension Specialists with terminal degrees provide.

o Not valued at this institution.

o Support for travel for professional development is also worth considering.

There's been lots of studies over the years on salary. There's been little done as a result of them, save for once well over 10 years ago.

Evaluations need to be standardized and based on direct service to KSU in order to receive merit increases and tenure.

Should add staff salary survey.

Just that this needs to be completed and remedied as soon as possible.

With the current financial situation that the university is in, any adjustments in compensation need to be directed to those who have the lowest compensation (<$50,000).

Retirement: It should be recognized that, even if salaries become fairer, that will be of limited help to long-time faculty who are not in KTRS and are nearing retirement. It is my understanding that KSU continues to contribute more to the retirement of employees in KTRS than those whose retirement is with TIAA. If salaries are increased for folks in KTRS for 5 years, that will positively impact their retirement. If they are increased for folks like me, who are not in KTRS - and we're already receiving less contribution from KSU - then what? How can we remedy this long-term inequity?

One additional point, the Extension Associate in the U.K. College of Ag with a M.S. degree makes a higher salary than many of our full professor Ph.D. researchers with over 20 years of experience. The salaries of faculty who teach basic requirement courses should be raised the same percentage as the drop each year in ACT scores of admitted students. For example, if accepted ACT scores drop by 15 percent, instructor salaries should increase by 15 percent.

The salaries of faculty who teach basic requirement courses should be raised the same percentage as the drop each year in ACT scores of admitted students. For example, if accepted ACT scores drop by 15 percent, instructor salaries should increase by 15 percent.

o We need to address issues of unequal expectations. Evaluations are not uniform. Also, the understanding of merit and how that should be applied cannot address most of the issues that prompted this discussion.

o I have to admit that I am skeptical that this survey will have any impact. We've been told for years that we would get raises. Show me the money.

o Glad to be at KSU serving Kentuckians.

Nothing will change until an objective way to truly measure performance is developed. Right now a lot of pay increases are based on those who are the best at self-promotion which is in direct contrast to student promotion. Servants do not self-promote and those serving the students are being ignored or over-looked.

QUESTION 37: Are there any other issues you feel Faculty Senate should address on behalf of the faculty?

o I believe there should be no favored religious group at KSU. In accordance with this, I feel that mentioning Jesus in official convocations is an affront to non-Christian faculty, staff, and students.

o "Integrity" issues particularly where sexual misconduct involving faculty member and student arises.

o Better communication about what is actually going on in the Board of Regents would be helpful. Faculty Senate can't do anything to assist or provide input if we don't know what topics are under discussion. There are many dedicated and talented faculty at KSU who could contribute more to the institution if they are allowed to have a voice and participate in shared governance.

o Raising standards should go hand-in-hand with raising salaries, and vice versa. Making things transparent, clear, forceful, and goal-oriented, and truly implementing shared governance will go a long way, I believe.

o Organize orientations and training to new faculty. Ensure for timely T&P calendar, implementation of policies and procedures stated in the faculty handbook, such as evaluation of deans and chairs. Update faculty handbook every year. Ensure for appropriate release time for faculty who serve in the executive positions of F/S. Ensure for timely approval and implementation of action items by administrators approved by the senate. Coordinate with the Academic Affairs office for organizing professional development workshops, periodic trainings and summer retreat for faculty for pedagogical development. Assist administrators in making fall/spring institute (encampments) more effective by organizing additional sessions such as faculty T&P preparation training, innovative teaching methods, grants writing, etc.

The faculty senate should recommend the revision of the annual evaluation criteria for faculty. Faculty with split appointments should be evaluated according to their work in teaching, research and extension. Faculty who are full-time teaching should be evaluated for their teaching.

The fact that sick leave conversion to retirement time was discontinued by the Burse administration without the knowledge of any faculty/senate etc. Is there even a slight chance this could be reversed?

Faculty Comments cont.

o Equity by gender and race.

o Merit pay criteria should be decided at the department level.

o Respect for the non-teaching faculty/professionals in research and Extension.

o Unit operating budgets.

o Senate needs to pass an action item stating that if any non-teaching faculty serve in positions that are compensated by release time (president/secretary), those non-teaching faculty should get a commensurate stipend during their service. As it is, non-teaching faculty who serve in such positions, as Dr. Hampton last year, are treated unfairly. This is also a disincentive to non-teaching faculty to run for such positions.

o Don't have the energy to do so.

o Unqualified individual promoted to administrative positions.

Poor communication between administration and faculty- specifically the short notice that we often receive for mandatory meetings and short notice about changes to schedules or providing information about mandatory events like graduation.

o Consistent pursuit of reliable competence from the executive staff side of the house.

o Faculty evaluation criteria and forms.

o Yes. Something is better than nothing, we will never satisfy everyone so this needs to be in the minds when decisions are made.

We need to change the course evaluations. Most students don't complete them and yet they are used for promotion, tenure, and perhaps now, for merit increases. How can we evaluate our courses with more reliability and validity? We also need more assistance with the tasks that need to be accomplished for SACSCOC. Some faculty are familiar with creating SLOs, valid assessments and rubrics, innovative instructional strategies, and curricular matrices, while others are not. Hit-and-miss workshops and trainings are not enough. We need an ACE lab for faculty, staffed by experts in teaching, learning, and assessment.

o There should be an optional stipend for non-teaching faculty who serve in Senate positions offering release time.

o Race. Why are we the only HBCU without Black professors? Why am I working in a slavocracy?

o Increase the percentage of the budget going towards instruction and direct student support.

o Need to address issues with faculty handbook and find a way to get university to follow the policy better. It is improving but still needs improvement.

The ever-growing mountain of institutional research work (assessment data, etc.) being piled on to faculty and the related demand that we "quantify" every aspect of the educational process.

o I think Senate is doing a good job on our behalf, and have been for the past several years.

o Rank when someone comes in as a full professor from previous institutions.

o Set up an award for getting grant (a percent of the grant with a cap).

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: The Board of Regents approved the Amended FY2020 budget on June 6, 2019.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES:

Personnel and operational costs are divided by organization structure. All payroll expenses are anticipated through 6/30/2020. Please note that some departments encumber their contractual obligations and fixed costs expenses through June 30, causing their remaining/available balance to appear lower than usual for the end of the first quarter.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development.

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

Goal 3: Increase the University's Financial Strength and Operational Efficiency.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The University is not operating within the approved budget.

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

Kentucky State University FY2019-20 Budget to Actual For Month ending 9/30/2019

YTD

Org # Organizational Unit 7,577,700.00 6,314,775.00 1,262,925.00

5310 State Appropriation 6,143,689.00 4,250,000.00 1,893,689.00

5100 Tuition and Mandatory Fees 328,925.00 125,000.00 203,925.00

5200 Non-manatory (Optional) Fees 15,490.00 8,750.00 6,740.00

5200 Employee Parking 10,264.54 43,750.00 (33,485.46)

5220 Interest Income 82,598.59 125,000.00 (42,401.41)

5220 Indirect Cost Recovery 52,879.01 - 52,879.01

5220 Other Revenues 3,018,746.46 1,301,250.00 1,717,496.46

5103 Auxiliary Enterprise 17,230,292.60 12,168,525.00 5,061,767.60

Total Revenues

1010 Board of Regents 8,413.34 93,040.50 (84,627.16)

Actual Budget Actual/Budget Variance

1000 Presidential Area 344,829.91 636,483.00 (291,653.09)

1050 Athletics 377,170.17 640,057.50 (262,887.33)

2000 Academic Affairs 1,020,489.39 2,864,540.75 (1,844,051.36)

2061 Land Grant - Federally Mandated Match 340,804.17 1,646,225.00 (1,305,420.83)

3000 Student Affairs 700,307.03 589,773.50 110,533.53

4000 Finance and Administration 1,772,258.76 2,600,728.75 (828,469.99)

5000 Brand Identity 109,730.12 245,710.37 (135,980.25)

5040 Facilities 1,250,423.57 1,445,178.09 (194,754.52)

5080 Auxiliary Services 846,858.03 1,177,161.25 (330,303.22)

6000 University General 551,946.40 229,626.30 322,320.11

Total Expenses 7,323,230.89 12,168,525.00 (4,845,294.11)

Operating Income/Loss 9,907,061.71 - 9,907,061.71

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: The University continues to maintain and enhance the existing campus infrastructure through asset preservation related activities using the Commonwealth's capital construction process and internal staff and resources.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: See project descriptions in this document.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development.

Goal 3: Increase the University's Financial Strength and Operational Efficiency.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: Colleges and Universities are adding mental health information, such as mental health and suicide prevention hotline numbers, on the student ID card.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES:

KSU is committed to improving mental health access for students. One step to improve access is to ensure that students have access to mental health assistance when needed. As a result, information on mental health services will be printed on the back of KSU's student ID cards. The updated cards will be reissued during the Spring 2020 registration. The wording for back of the card is being determined by mental health professionals on campus.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development.

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: Students will have access to mental health services when they need it most.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost to reissue the student ID cards with the Mental Health verbiage will be approximately $6,700.

RECOMMENDATION: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: YES

KSU Cares! We value our students and encourage you to seek assistance if experiencing any mental health concerns.

<table><tr><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></table>

National Suicide Prevention Hotline 1-800-273-8255

Frankfort Regional Medical Center 299 Kings Daughters Drive Frankfort, KY 40601 Phone: 502-875-5240

Eastern State Hospital Phone: 859-253-1686 Crisis Number: 800-928-8000

KSU Counseling Center Old Rosenwald Building, Student Health Services Phone: 502-597-6271

For immediate on-campus counseling needs after hours, please contact the Residence Hall Director On Call @ (502) 352-5447

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: The 2020 Legislative Agenda lists objectives for legislative action at the state level that affects operational efficiency. The agenda includes six public-policy priorities for advocacy in addition to maintaining base funding requiring approval by the General Assembly.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: To advocate for Kentucky State University’s legislative priorities before members of the Kentucky General Assembly.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 1: Enhance Student Enrollment, Improve Student Life and Engagement, and Improve Student Advising and Career Development.

Goal 2: Achieve Academic Excellence Across all Programs and Colleges, Increase Student General Education Skills, Degree Persistence, Career Readiness and Graduation Rates.

Goal 3: Increase the University's Financial Strength and Operational Efficiency.

Goal 4: Enhance the Impact of External Relations and Development.

Goal 5: Obtain Maximum Institutional Effectiveness through the Implementation of a Continuous Quality Improvement Process framed within the seven Baldrige Performance Excellence in Education criteria.

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: A decrease in general fund appropriations will have a direct impact on program development, implementation, and student services. Advocacy efforts seek to retain funding allocations and authorization to remain competitive in the global market.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: General fund appropriations directly impact operational efficiency, campus infrastructure, and student success.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 2020 Legislative Agenda.

ATTACHMENTS: YES

2020 Legislative Priorities

• Land Grant Program Matching Funds

Kentucky State University is requesting the full Matching Funds Requirement for Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds at 1890 Land-Grant Institutions. Federal law stipulates that funding must be provided from non-federal sources made available by the State to eligible institutions for programs or activities that fall within the purposes of agricultural research and cooperative extension under sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Policy Act.

• Campus Bond Authority

Kentucky State University requests authorization pursuant to KRS 45.763 to facilitate the accelerated development of student housing due to an increase in enrollment. Communities around Kentucky have faced the challenge of ensuring sufficient affordable housing for residents. Housing availability is in particularly short supply in the Frankfort community, home to Kentucky State University's campus. To address those circumstances, Kentucky State University seeks to harness the expertise and resources of a public-private partnership to construct a new residence hall.

• Property Exchange and Real Property Proceeds

Kentucky State University requests permission to retain proceeds from the sale of real estate and other real properties without sequestration or return of monies to the Commonwealth's general fund. The language would address “Conveyance of Property” per KRS. 45.777 and 164A.575(7). Kentucky State University may dispose of real property and improvements located throughout the Commonwealth that may become surplus to its needs and retain the proceeds from any sale to be used solely by Kentucky State University.

• Performance Funding Timetable

Unless action is taken by the General Assembly, Kentucky State University faces a significant budgetary impact in 2021-2022 due to the sunset of the stop-loss provision in KRS 164.092. Kentucky State University supports a 2% stop-loss provision allowing the campus to fulfill the authorized Management Improvement Plan established by the General Assembly in HB 303 (2016).

• Student Success Outcomes

A vibrant university that delivers academic excellence and focuses on student retention and success is a strong pillar of the community and economy. Kentucky State University’s enrollment initiative integrates innovative practices centered around analytics, curriculum, standards, and measurement to reduce barriers to timely completion of the degree. The university requests legislative support for student success tools such as mental health and intervention programs, expanding next-generation online learning and campus technology (including Pre-College Academy, University College, and KCTCS transfer articulation/common course numbering).

• Environmental Education Research Center

Kentucky State University’s Environmental Education Research Center educates, inspires, and empowers K-12 students through hands-on curriculum for STEM, environmental education including workforce development, 21st-century team building, critical thinking, and creativity. The Center is a feasible and sustainable infrastructure to support a state-wide environment literacy plan coordinating with school districts and community partners. Kentucky State University requests support for a partnership initiative with the Commonwealth.

KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY Board of Regents

BACKGROUND: Kentucky State University (University) acknowledges the statutory authority of its Board of Regents to adopt University bylaws (both academic and non-academic) that govern the University.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES: Pursuant to SACSCOC's newly adopted Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, Section 4(2)(b), a Governing Board must:

[ensure] a clear and appropriate distinction between the policymaking function of the board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy. (Board/administrative distinction)

The rationale behind the requirements for Section 4(2)(b), is outlined in the Resource Manual for the Principles of Accreditations, published in March 2018. The Resource Manual’s rationale and notes as it relates to Standard 4(2)(b) states as follows:

Effective governance includes clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of the governing board, administration, and faculty and ensuring that each of these groups adheres to their appropriate roles and responsibilities. While it is important that the overall mission and overarching policies of the institution are approved by the board, the administration and implementation of the general direction set by the board are carried out by the administration and faculty in order to prevent the board from undercutting the authority of the president and other members of the administration and faculty, thereby creating an unhealthy and unworkable governance structure.

As set forth above, effective governance requires that a governing board provide general direction to the University as to the roles and responsibilities of University groups. The proposed revisions to The Gold Book satisfy this requirement.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal 3: Increase the University's Financial Strength and Operational Efficiency.

Goal 5: Obtain Maximum Institutional Effectiveness through the Implementation of a Continuous Quality Improvement Process framed within the seven Baldrige Performance Excellence in Education criteria.

COMMITTEE/PROGRAM ACTION: N/A

PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS: N/A

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Gold Book: Bylaws of the Kentucky State University Board of Regents revisions.

ATTACHMENTS: YES

Kentucky State University

The Gold Book: Bylaws of the Kentucky State University Board of Regents

Article I: Declaration

Section 1.1:

The governance of Kentucky State University is vested in the Board of Regents of Kentucky State University. The Board in conformity with the State Constitution and State laws, shall have exclusive jurisdiction, power and authority with regard to the supervision, management and control of Kentucky State University, shall be the final authority in all matters pertaining to the University, and it shall exercise jurisdiction over the University's financial, educational, administrative and other policies, and its relations with state, local, and federal governments.

Section 1.2: The Board of Regents of Kentucky State University is a constituted entity of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. KRS 164.310 and KRS 164.321

Section 1.3: The Board shall constitute a body corporate, with the usual corporate powers, and with all immunities, rights, privileges and franchises usually accorded the governing bodies of educational institutions.

Article II: Powers and Duties

Section 2: The Board of Regents, in governing the affairs of Kentucky State University, shall:

• (a)Appoint the President of the University, who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board on such terms as may be mutually agreeable to the Board and the President;
• (b)Review and evaluate, on an annual basis, the performance of the President of the University according to the approved procedures and processes, written objectives, specific and general,

Bylaws

Kentucky State University Board of Regents

Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) Page 1 of 15

developed by the President in conjunction with the Board as presented at the outset of each academic year;

• (c)Engage outside advisors and counsel, in its discretion, to assist the Board in carrying out its duties, including, but not limited to, the evaluation of the President;
• (d)Approve the employment of faculty members at the administrative level, and staff employees at the vice-president level and above, and fix their compensation and tenure of service, on recommendation of the President and prior to any offer of employment, except that the President may conditionally appoint these persons for a ninety day period until the next board meeting;
• (e)Approve all administrative employment contracts offered to University employees prior to execution by the parties;
• (f)Adopt guidelines for salary ranges and benefit guidelines for all faculty, administrative and University personnel;
• (g)Adopt the annual budget for the University and approve any material budget changes;
• (h)Approve tuition, fees and other charges;
• (i)Approve all loans, borrowing and issuance of bonds;
• (j)Approve, after consultation with the President, an administrative structure and plan of organization needed for the successful conduct of the University;
• (k)Act as a policy-making body by adopting policy statements of governance and operation of the University, in areas, including, but not limited to, human resources, information technology, public relations and development;
• (I)Entrust the internal administration of the University to the President in accordance with the duly established governing Board Policies and administrative regulations;
• (m)(m)Grant diplomas and confer degrees upon the recommendation of the President and faculty;

Bylaws

Bylaws Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) Page 2 of 15

Bylaws Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) Page 3 of 15

• (n)Periodically evaluate the University’s progress in implementing its mission, goals, and objectives to conform to the strategic agenda, and hold University officers and officials accountable for the status of the University’s progress;
• (o)Promulgate state financial management administrative regulations in accordance with KRS 164A.560, and delegate the responsibilities for these functions to the president of the University. These financial management functions include: acquisitions of funds, purchasing, and receiving, depositing, collecting, retaining, investing, disbursing and accounting for all funds received or due from any source;
• (p)Approve any appropriation, expenditure, disbursement or contract greater than $50,000, notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 164A.560 and 745 KAR 1:035;
• (q)Approve the Constitution and Bylaws of the Faculty Senate, the Staff Council, and the Student Government Association, except where in conflict with these Bylaws or with governing Board Policies;
• (r)Periodically review and/or approve University vision, mission, and proposed long-range strategic plans;
• (s)Become familiar with, committed to, and abide by, the major responsibilities of this governing Board, as set out in these Bylaws and the Kentucky Revised Statutes, including:
• defining and clarifying the vision, mission and approving long-range plans; and
• evaluating regularly the Board’s responsibilities, expectations and performance and the performance of the President; and
• (t)Accept the spirit of academic freedom and collegial governance as fundamental characteristics of University governance.

Bylaws Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) Page 4 of 15

Article III: Internal Governance

Section 3.1: The Board chairperson speaks for the Board. No other Board member, unless designated by the chairperson, has this prerogative and responsibility.

Section 3.2: The Board chairperson presents the Board's positions, interests, policies, plans, and decisions to the public, the media, and public officials.

Section 3.3: The Board's authority and influence stems from its official standing as a full Board with its assigned duties and responsibilities. No individual member, other than the chairperson, has the authority to speak for the Board. No individual member has authority to take actions or make commitments for the Board. Only the collective Board has authority.

Section 3.4: All substantive issues, proposals, resolutions, plans, information, data, and inquiries come to, and from, the Board through the President of the institution.

Section 3.5: Board members confronted with a University problem or concern should report this matter to the President and to the Board chairperson. In the event the problem or concern relates to the Board chairperson, the matter should be reported to the Board vice chairperson. The chairperson or vice chairperson will direct whatever action is deemed necessary in consultation with the President, if necessary, or with University internal or external counsel. The appropriate Board Committee chairperson will also be involved in the process. Under no circumstances should a Board member individually address the situation.

Section 3.6: Board members should not attempt to persuade, direct, opinionate, coerce, threaten, or influence a University employee's position or practice.

Section 3.7: Board members should make every effort to attend special events and other activities which promote the University whenever feasible and as scheduling permits.

Section 3.8: The Board shall annually, at its retreat, develop goals and objectives for the upcoming year and evaluate its performance from the previous year. The Executive Committee shall be responsible to determine the procedure by which such evaluations are to be conducted, subject to Board approval.

Bylaws

Bylaws Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) Page 5 of 15

Article IV Membership and Appointment to the Board of Regents

Section 4.1: The Board of Regents shall consist of eleven persons as provided by State law: eight members appointed by the Governor of Kentucky, one faculty member elected by members of the faculty with academic rank above instructor, one student member elected by the student body, and one non-teaching personnel member elected by members of the staff.

Section 4.2: The gubernatorial appointments may include one (1) graduate of the respective institution who resides outside the Commonwealth. Not more than two (2) appointed members of any Board shall be residents of one (1) county. The appointments shall reflect the proportional representation of the two (2) leading political parties of the Commonwealth based on the state's voter registration. Membership on the Board shall reflect no less than proportional representation of the minority racial composition of the Commonwealth. Membership on the Board shall not be incompatible with any state office. A change in residency after the date of appointment shall not affect a member's ability to serve nor shall it prevent a member's eligibility for reappointment.

Section 4.3: Appointments to fill vacancies shall be made in the same manner and within the same time after the occurrence of the vacancy as regular appointments. The person appointed shall hold the position for the unexpired term only.

Section 4.4: The faculty member shall be a teaching or research member of the faculty of the rank of assistant professor or above, excluding departmental chairs, deans, directors, vice provosts, and provost. He/she shall be elected by secret ballot by all faculty members of the rank of assistant professor or above.

Section 4.5: The nonteaching personnel member shall be any full-time staff member excluding the president, vice presidents, academic deans, and academic department chairpersons. He/she shall represent all nonteaching University employees including, but not limited to, building facilities and clerical personnel. He/she shall be elected by secret ballot by the nonteaching employees.

Section 4.6: The student member on the Board shall be the president of the student body of the University during the appropriate academic year and may be an out-of-state resident, if applicable.

Bylaws

Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) Page 6 of 15

Section 4.7: All persons appointed shall be required to attend and complete an orientation program prescribed by the council under KRS 164.020 as a condition of their service.

Article V: Term of Office of Board of Regents Members

Section 5.1: Each member of the Board shall serve for the term for which he/she is appointed and until his successor is appointed and qualified.

Section 5.2: The terms of the appointed members of the Board of Regents shall be for six years and until their successors are appointed and qualified.

Section 5.3: The faculty member shall serve for a term of three years and until his/her successor is elected and qualified. The faculty member shall be eligible for reelection, but he/she shall not be eligible to continue to serve as a member of the Board if he/she ceases being a member of the teaching staff of the University. Elections to fill vacancies shall be for the unexpired term in the same manner as provided for the original election.

Section 5.4: The student member shall serve for a term of one year beginning with the first meeting of the fiscal year which contains that academic year. If the student member does not maintain his position as student body president or his status as a full-time student at any time during that academic year, a special election shall be held to select a full-time student member.

Section 5.5: The non-teaching personnel member shall serve for a term of three years and until his successor is elected and qualified. The nonteaching personnel member shall be eligible for reelection, but he/she shall not be eligible to continue to serve as a member of the Board if he/she ceases being an employee of the University. Elections to fill vacancies shall be for the unexpired term in the same manner as provided for the original election.

Section 5.6: Removal of Members

1. Any Board member may be removed by the Governor for cause as prescribed in KRS 63.080(2) or may be removed and replaced as prescribed in KRS 63.080(3) to meet the proportional representation requirement.
2. All appointed members of the Board may be removed for cause as prescribed in KRS 63.080(4) if the Board is no longer functioning according to its statutory mandate as specific in the enabling statutes applicable to the Board, or if the Board membership's

Bylaws

Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) Page 7 of 15

conduct as a whole constitutes malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty, such that the conduct cannot be attributed to any single member or members.

(3) The inability of the Board to hold quarterly meetings, to elect a chairperson annually, to establish a quorum, to adopt an annual budget, to set tuition rates, to conduct an annual evaluation of the president of the university, to carry out its primary function to periodically evaluate the university's progress in implementing its mission, goals, and objectives to conform to the strategic agenda, or to otherwise perform its duties under KRS 164.350 shall be cause for the Governor to remove all appointed members of the board and replace the entire appointed membership pursuant to KRS 63.080(4).

Bylaws Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) Page 8 of 15

Article VI: Meetings of the Board of Regents

Section 6.1: The Board of Regents shall hold its first meeting within thirty days after each appointment of new members.

Section 6.2: Thereafter, the Board of Regents shall meet quarterly in regular session at the University or at such other times and places as agreed upon according to a calendar adopted annually by the Board. The annual meeting calendar shall include dates for the Board's annual retreat.

Section 6.3: The chairperson of the Board shall call special meetings of the Board at the request of the President of the University or by two members of the Board. The Board may at such special meetings transact any or all business that it may transact at a regular meeting except that the business to be transacted at a special meeting shall be specified in the notice of the meeting in accordance with Kentucky's Open Meetings law.

Section 6.4: The chairperson of the Board may call an emergency meeting pursuant to this provision of the Bylaws. For purposes herein, “emergency” is defined as a situation which creates or has the potential to create a threat to the health, wellbeing, or safety of the University or the University community. The Board shall make a reasonable effort, under emergency circumstances, to notify the members of the Board, media organizations which have filed a written request for notification, and the public of the emergency meeting. At the beginning of the emergency meeting, the chairperson shall briefly describe for the record the emergency circumstances preventing compliance with the notice provisions under the Open Meetings law. These comments shall appear in the minutes. Discussions and action at the emergency meeting shall be limited to the emergency for which the meeting was called.

Board members are expected to attend all Board meetings, commencement ceremonies, and participate in Board development activities. If a Board member is unable to physically attend a Board meeting, he/she may participate via any appropriate technology that allows the Board member to substantively participate via means that is consistent with the Open Meetings Act or any other applicable law. Section 6.6: Members of the University community and members of the public are welcome to attend open meetings of the Board, but may not address the Board of Regents or otherwise participate in the meetings except pursuant to a previously approved request for appearance to be heard in accordance with this paragraph.

Section 6.6: Members of the University community and members of the public are welcome to attend open meetings of the Board, but may not address the Board of Regents or otherwise participate in the meetings except pursuant to a previously approved request for appearance to be heard in accordance with this paragraph.

Bylaws

Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) 9

9

Persons desiring to be heard by the Board shall first submit to the President in writing the subject matter and the reason for desiring to be heard by the Board. The President shall then call the request to the attention of the Board chairperson. The chairperson may then determine whether or not to permit the person requesting appearance before the Board to speak, or the Board by a majority vote may grant such a request of the person requesting authority to speak. The Board shall be notified of all requests that are denied.

Section 6.7: The President of the University shall attend all meetings of the Board.

Section 6.8: A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

Section 6.9: Meeting agendas of the Board shall be determined jointly by the President and the Board chairperson, with essential materials provided to the Board members at least seven (7) calendar days in advance for regular meetings, and as soon as practicable for special meetings.

Section 6.10: Upon the concurrence of the Board chairperson and the President, agenda items may be designated as consent agenda items in the agenda of a regular Board meeting. Consent agenda items shall be recommended for approval by a single vote by the Board without discussion of individual items. Only individual Board members shall have the right to remove any item from the consent agenda and place it on the agenda for separate consideration by the Board.

Section 6.11: All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the principles of procedure prescribed in Roberts' Rules of Order, as most recently amended.

Article VII: Officers of the Board of Regents

Section 7.1: The Board of Regents shall elect its chairperson and vice-chairperson annually at the Board's first meeting.

Section 7.2: The Board shall appoint a Secretary and the term of the Secretary shall be at the pleasure of the Board.

Bylaws Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) 10

Section 7.3: The Board shall appoint a Treasurer and the term of the Treasurer shall be at the pleasure of the Board.

Section 7.43: The Board shall appoint any such officers as it deems necessary, except no member of the Board shall be appointed Treasurer.

Article VIII: Duties of the Officers of the Board of Regents

Section 8.1: The Chairperson shall preside at the meetings of Board and shall be responsible for the management and orderly conduct of the business of the Board. The Chairperson shall issue calls to convene the Board in regular and special meetings. He/she shall determine the date, time and place of the Board meetings.

Section 8.2: The Vice-Chairperson shall, in the absence or disability of the Chairperson, perform the duties of the Chairperson of the Board.

Section 8.3: The Secretary shall keep and prepare all records, books and papers belonging to the Board. The Secretary shall prepare for and submit to Board members in advance an agenda of the business for discussion and decision by the Board. The Secretary shall record and keep on file accurate minutes and other documents of all Board deliberations and decisions. The Secretary shall submit the minutes of each Board meeting to members of the Board not more than thirty (30) days after approval of the minutes, and shall ensure that the Board Chairperson signs all approved minutes. The Secretary shall transmit all officially signed minutes to the University Archives in Blazer Library. Further, the Secretary shall prepare, under the direction of the Board, all reports and estimates, and shall execute all matters belonging to his office. The Secretary's compensation shall be fixed by the Board, if appropriate.

Section 8.4: The Treasurer shall be responsible for the management of the financial affairs of the Board and the University in accordance with accepted budgetary procedures and state law. He/she shall receive and disburse money under the control of the Board, and perform all acts that pertain to his office under the direction of the Board. He/she shall present at each regular meeting of the Board a statement of the financial status of the University.

Bylaws Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) 11

Article IX: Committees of the Board of Regents

Section 9.1: The standing committees of the Board of Regents shall be the Academic Affairs Committee, the Audit Committee, the Brand Identity and University Relations Committee, the Executive Committee, the Finance and Administration Committee, the Governance Committee, the Institutional Advancement Committee, and the Student Engagement and Campus Life Committee. Members and chairpersons of the standing committees of the Board shall be selected by the chairperson of the Board of Regents. Other standing committees of the Board shall be determined by the Board with members appointed by the Chairperson. Ad hoc committees may be created and members appointed by the Chairperson.

Section 9.2: Committees shall possess no delegated authority of the Board of Regents unless approved by a majority vote of the Board or as allowed under these Bylaws. All actions of each committee, unless taken with delegated authority, shall constitute recommendations to the Board and shall be subject to approval by a majority vote of the Board.

Section 9.3: All Committee members shall serve for a term of one year or until their successors have been duly selected by the chairperson. In the event of a vacancy on a committee, the successor member shall be selected by the chairperson of the Board of Regents and shall hold office for the balance of the term of office of the person vacating their office. Section 9.4: The Executive and Audit Committee shall be composed of the officers of the Board of Regents, the standing committee chairpersons, and the past Board chairperson. The chairperson of the Executive Committee shall be the chairperson of the Board of Regents. The Executive Committee shall provide guidance to the President on matters that arise in the interim between regular meetings. The Executive Committee shall have the same powers as the Board of Regents during the interim between meetings of the board, except that it may not elect or dismiss a president of the University, create a new position in the University, abolish one already existing, nor adopt the annual budget for the University.

Section 9.4: The Executive and Audit Committee shall be composed of the officers of the Board of Regents, the standing committee chairpersons, and the past Board chairperson. The chairperson of the Executive Committee shall be the chairperson of the Board of Regents. The Executive Committee shall provide guidance to the President on matters that arise in the interim between regular meetings. The Executive Committee shall have the same powers as the Board of Regents during the interim between meetings of the board, except that it may not elect or dismiss a president of the University, create a new position in the University, abolish one already existing, nor adopt the annual budget for the University.

The Executive and Audit Committee, shall:

(a) Serve as the President's Evaluation and Compensation Committee, and shall present recommendations concerning the President's compensation to the full Board for a vote;

Bylaws

Bylaws Kentucky State University Board of Regents Effective Date: January 23, 2015 (Approved KSU Board of Regents) 12

• (b)Involve the entire Board in the President's evaluation process and shall use the approved procedures for the evaluation of the University President;
• (c)Be responsible for the planning of the Board's annual retreat. The Executive and Audit Committee, shall also:

(a)(d) Monitor the effectiveness of management's system of internal control to prevent and detect fraud;

(b)(e) Ensure open communications among management, internal auditors, auditors, and the Board;

(c)(f) Recommend to the Board the External Auditors/firm;

(d)(g) Discuss the annual audit report and other external audit issues with and appropriate staff;

(e)(h) Present the annual financial audit to the full Board;

(f)(i) Review the annual internal audit plan and discuss the extent to which it addresses high risk areas with President;

(g)(j) Review and submit the Internal Audit Charter to the Board for approval on a routine basis to include changes needed to ensure that the audit function is complying with professional standards, best practices, and addressing emerging audit issues.

The Executive and Audit Committee shall submit to the board of Regents for its ratification at the next full Board meeting a complete record of all actions taken by the Executive and Audit Committee.