Walston also commented on the importance of the Provost Office when putting the exigency committee together.

Regent Fields commented on the substantial amount of language in the policy regarding staff reductions and eliminations of programs. He wanted to go on record to say that the University was already operating with “skeleton crews,” and requested that during the evaluation process such staff challenges be considered. Regent Patton observed that it was not the role of the Board to generate policies, but to only approve proposed policies and stressed the urgency associated with the exigency policy process. Acting President Stamps observed that the exigency policy designated the Board to approve any matters that were brought from the policy and also that the Board of Regents had authority over the appeals process related to this policy. Attorney Lang emphasized the reason for this policy namely that it exists to address the declared lack of efficacy in the financial performance of Kentucky State University. Attorney Lang also emphasized the importance of shared governance and ensuring that the process of policy approval was collaborative.

Regent Walston observed that staff members who received tenure before may be eligible for an appeal. Attorney Lang responded by saying that the termination provision of the exigency policy was intended to address rights that were already provided. President Stamps inquired about the staff members who were granted tenure before and whether they were granted tenure by the Board of Regents.

Regent Fletcher requested clarification on the process of how the Board remains within legal compliance of their fiduciary and personnel responsibilities. Attorney Lang responded that the policy was intended to be cognizant state laws that imposed such duties on the Board of Regents. Attorney Lang explained that in exercising the exigency policy, a committee forms the metrics to evaluate the staff and tenured faculty to determine who may potentially be released from employment. Furthermore, the policy provided a section that addressed the appeals process only available to tenured faculty. Regent Fletcher asked a hypothetical question that supposed if the committee recommended a termination of a faculty member, would such a decision return to the Board of Regents for review. Attorney Lang responded that the initial decision of termination would be made by the exigency committee and that the final decision resided with the President.

Regent Patton asked about extensions and whether the final authority of appeals resided with the Board of Regents. Attorney Lang affirmed, but emphasized that the appeals process was only available to tenured faculty. Regent Patton responded by emphasizing the legal importance of complete compliance with both state law and procedures from accrediting agencies.

Regent Moyer spoke in support of recognizing different ways of approaching the financial exigency issue but advocated for approaching the issue from the perspective of long-term program viability. Regent Patton responded by observing that Regent Moyer, as chair of the academic affairs committee, would have the task of reviewing Kentucky State University's academic programs and that the exigency policy relates more to faculty and staffing. Attorney Lang responded by stating that the University was viewing the exigency process as a tiered one and that different components of the exigency process would be addressed over time.