Collections: 
0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

Image 10 of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2012-02-21

Part of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees

item | thumbnails | details | text | pdf
Download this image
-10- Finally, in CS 3.2.7, SACS requires that the Board has the responsibility for the organizational structure. An example of this was in 2005, the Board approved the move from the Chancellor system to the Provost system. Another example is in the Goveming Regulations that the Board reviewed today and will approve at the next meeting. Dr. Anderson reviewed the time table ofthe SACS Accreditation process, emphasizing the September l0, 20l2 report deadline, the off-site review during November 6-9m, the January 20l3 final QEP report submission, and the on-site SACS visit on April 9-ll, 20l3. Dr. Anderson offered that SACS prefers and the University prefers, that during that visit they focus only on the QEP and not on anything non-compliant. The team is working very hard to make sure that doesn’t happen. However, if there is something that is non-compliant, they give the University a second chance when the team visits in April 20l3. Then we have a chance before they make a final decision, December of 20l3, to clarify or to correct anything that might have been mistaken as non-compliant. Dr. Anderson thanked Dr. Jen Skaggs and Dr. Mia Alexander- Snow for their assistance with the presentation. The Board gave a round of applause. Drs. Voro and Wilson expressed concems regarding the process of the goveming regulations and its presentation to the Board. Provost Subbaswamy, General Counsel Barbara Jones, and Senate Chair Hollie Swanson explained the vetting process for these changes. Provost Subbaswamy and General Counsel Barbara Jones explained that proposed changes in the GR’s were cosmetic and not substantive. Ms. May asked that the issue be referred to a committee that could meet to discuss the issues and answer any questions before the next Board meeting. Dr. Brockman motioned that the Board accept PR4 as the first reading and stated that before the next Board meeting on March 27, 20l2, which will be the 2nd reading and the vote, the Academic Affairs Committee ofthe Board of Trustees would review these GR changes. The motion was approved and passed without dissent. H. Petition to Address the Board of Trustees Dr. Brockman reported that one petition to address the Board was received. Under the Goveming Regulations, part II, the petition was found to be relevant and was referred to the Finance Committee for the March 27th meeting. The subject matter ofthe petition is a follow up regarding a presentation at the October Board meeting on renewable energy on campus. I. Candidate for Degree (AACR l) Dr. Gannon, chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, reported that the committee welcomed Provost Subbaswamy, who presented an overview of scholarship and recruitment efforts and also Dr. Heidi Anderson, who gave an assessment of programs and their effectiveness and relevance.