Chair Patton then turned the meeting over to Dr. Leroy Hamilton, Jr., Provost and VP of Academic Affairs, and Ms. Candace Raglin, Director of Human Resources.
Provost Hamilton gave a presentation on House Bill 250 and its impact on Academic Affairs and the Faculty Evaluation Policy and Process.
Following his presentation, Provost Hamilton responded to questions from Regent Dukes, Vice Chair Walston, Regent Moyer, and Regent Briggs.
Move the Board to approve the Employee Evaluation Policy and Process.
The motion was seconded by Regent Moyer and additionally seconded by Vice Chair Walston.
Before a vote was taken, Vice Chair Walston inquired as to whether faculty would be able to review the timetable for the evaluation process and provide comments on it. Provost Hamilton informed that an opening session would occur during the second week of August, at which time he intended to deliver a presentation to returning faculty.
General Counsel Lang noted that Regent Adams' motion would also include the adoption of a new faculty review process and staff review process.
Regent Fields commented that one of the issues with staff evaluations in the past was that they were not tied to merit and then asked whether merit-based staff evaluations have been seriously considered. Interim President Johnson replied that according to the requirements of House Bill 250, there must be a process for determining career paths and a process for determining compensation. He further noted that once it is understood what the ranges, positions, and career paths will be, the University can then examine how to incorporate equity and performance in the compensation plan. He clarified that the presentation only addressed the evaluation plan.
Following a vote, the motion to approve the Employee Evaluation Policy and Process passed without dissent.
General Counsel Lang stated that House Bill 250 requires Kentucky State University to ensure that the University undertakes comprehensive cataloguing and review of University policies and procedures. She emphasized that an established process is needed so that University constituents can weigh in on how those policies are to be updated.
Regent Dukes inquired as to whether there were any policy changes within the last year or two years that would need to be addressed. General Counsel Lang replied that such an