The Kentucky State Board of Regents adopted a yearly presidential evaluation procedure and process that includes the president's self-evaluation, a completed performance evaluation questionnaire completed by Regents, students, faculty, staff as well as interviews with campus senior leaders, students, faculty, alumni and staff. This multi-faceted approach to the review will provide a very comprehensive view of the president's annual performance. A consultant/facilitator from TM2 Executive Search was engaged to facilitate the review process.
The purpose of this presidential review of President M. Christopher Brown II is (1) to foster improved performance of the institution; (2) to encourage improved performance of the president as part of his ongoing professional development; and (3) to inform the president and the Regents about how others are responding to the president's efforts, and how other perceive his accomplishments, and his prospects.
The emphasis throughout the interview process is on constructive, collegial thinking. A deliberate effort is made to obtain helpful suggestions to improve the effectiveness of Kentucky State University and President Brown. In the end, the review should be thorough, fair and constructive.
Special mention must be made regarding the substantial assistance provided by KSU General Counsel Lisa Lang and Elise Borne. Ms. Borne served as the on-site coordinator for this review. She elicited the cooperation of the participates, arranged and rearranged schedules to accommodate conferees. Their patience and skills are appreciated. Additional mention to Dr. Yuliana Sustanto, director of institutional research, and her staff for conducting the surveys associated with this review. Regent Farris provided very helpful guidance during the review process.
Likewise, it must be said that President Brown cooperated fully with the review. Throughout the process, the president maintained the proper “arm’s length” distance from the process, while cooperating fully with it. The method used to conduct and report interview does not involve rigidly controlled statistical processes. We are dealing with perceptions first. “Facts” are not unearthed and reported with certainty. We are dealing with perceptions first. In the same way that “facts are events, objects, and phenomena about which the majority of competent observers can agree,” those perceptions that are frequently and strongly held by reasonably competent observers might or might not lead to consensus; it is this consensus, its relative presence or absence, that the review facilitator listen and probe for, and reported.
The accuracy and value of the report reside, then, in the perceptions and suggestions of the individuals who participated, individuals who are well grounded in Kentucky State University, its realities and potentials, and who have a keen interest in its welfare.
The purposes of the review were made clear by the facilitator on the outset of each conference. Ground-rules with regard to confidentiality, non-attribution, and anonymity were articulated, and conferees were asked to concur on all counts. In virtually all cases, the tone of the conferences was both professional and amicable even when disagreements were expressed.
At the conclusion of each conference, participants were asked, “Were there any questions you wanted me to ask that we did not ask?” Conferees were also asked if there was anything they wished to say that they did not have a chance to say up to this point. Many interviewees expressed appreciation for the opportunity to present their views.