The consultant shall review and analyze the information gathered from the written evaluation forms, the Presidential Self-Evaluation, and the in-person interviews. The final report shall include the same headings that were included on the Board of Regent's evaluation form as well as written evidence pertaining to each of those performance factors (Strategies and Priorities; Leadership; Relationships with Constituencies; Financial Management; Fund-Raising; and Future Positioning).
Led the campus community through a successful SACSCOC 10-year accreditation review
Launched a campus-wide comprehensive strategic planning process
Reinvigorated the brand and identity of KSU
The University obtained full-match land-grant appropriation from the legislature in a non-budget year
Senior staff received expert professional development training to improve their managerial performance
Worked with the Division of Finance and Administration to execute campus facilities improvements and enhancements
The University was able to sustain enrollment and retention numbers
Gross tuition and fee revenue increases
The entire campus was introduced to a formal budget development process
Successfully reopened The Halls dormitory
The number of unrestricted gifts to KSU increased
The campus launched a capital and facilities master planning process
Initiated the KSU-Frankfort Town and Gown council
A Likert-Scale survey instrument was utilized to elicit Board feedback. The survey was developed in-house by reviewing instruments from other similar institutions. Caution should be taken in the interpretation of the results for two reasons: 1) the small number of respondents, and 2) the limitations of a 5 point Likert Scale. Moreover, three Board members were new. Nonetheless, areas of general agreement among Board members were identified and from their personal written comments the evaluator was able to identify their perceptions of the President's positive characteristics.
In the survey virtually all Board members either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with all statements that represented priority areas. Two areas of concern that 6-7 Regents identified were associated with “risk management” and the amount of time and energy that the President gave to fundraising. In my personal meeting with the Board of Regents they also desired more data and information from the President that would help them make more informed decisions.