The second committee, the on-site committee will visit our campus on April 9-10, 2013 and
their duties are to examine our second report, which is called the QEP, the Quality Enhancement
Plan. While the committee is reviewing the Compliance Certification Report in November, the
University will be polishing the Quality Enhancement Plan and submitting that report in January
2013. Dr. Anderson emphasized to the Board that principle 1.1 is very critical, and that is the
principal of integrity. When the Board approves this document in December, President Capilouto
and the SACS liaison (Heidi Anderson), also have to sign of`f that is a truthful document.
SACS also wants the Board of Trustees to be aware of approximately eleven (11) standards
that impact the Board directly. SACS wants every Board to understand the difference between
govemance and administration. The Board’s govemance roll includes the oversight of establishing
and evaluating the policies of the mission, hiring someone to manage the University, the evaluation
of that individual, and approving policies and monitoring the University toward success. It is the
responsibility of the President and the President’s team of individuals, to ensure that he or she fulfills
More specifically, in Core Requirement (CR) 2.2, SACS requires that the Board have a
goveming body, a certain number of individuals, and that this particular body is an active policy
making body. Dr. Anderson pointed out that the Board of Trustees is an active policy making body,
as is evidenced by the review of the Goveming Regulations at this meeting.
In Comprehensive Standard (CS) 3.1.1, SACS requires that the Board is aware ofthe mission,
that the mission should guide the University, and that the mission is reviewed periodically and
approved by the Board.
In CS 3.2.1, SACS requires the Board to hire one individual who is responsible for all of
these particular activities.
CS 3.2.2 covers a host of areas over which the Board has control. Dr. Anderson noted three
in particular, being the institution mission, fiscal responsibility and institutional policy.
CS 3.2.3, 3.2.4, and 3.2.5 state that the Board must adopt certain policies. First is a policy
that discusses conflict of interest. In 2004, the Board adopted an ethical and principal code of
conduct. That was an example of how the Board is adhering to CS 3.2.3. CS 3.2.4, states that the
Board cannot have extemal influence and 3.2.5 requires the Board to have a policy whereby members
can be dismissed for appropriate reasons in a fair process. CS 3.2.6 refers to the Board’s
responsibility to have a clear written distinction between the Board goveming responsibilities and the
University administrator responsibilities.
Dr. Anderson provided the example of Goveming Regulations and Administrative
Regulations oversight that is reviewed and approved. Another example she provided ofthe separate
responsibilities from Administration and Faculty, was in 2006, the Kentucky Legislature House Bill
55 passed the smoking cessation policy and asked all Boards in the state of Kentucky to add that
particular policy on the campus.