March, in which teams selected from among the search committee members, current and fonner
board members, and others will travel across the state to meet with Kentuckians and circulate
infonnation as well as gather input relevant to the presidential search.
Mr. Stuckert emphasized again the importance of total confidentiality of search
committee activities. He described the committees meetings on January 28 with separate groups
of faculty, staff, and students an hour at a time in the William T. Young Library. After those
meetings, the search committee met that aftemoon and produced two resolutions. The day after
the board meeting, February 23, the committee will meet again and will go into closed session to
review the candidates that have expressed an interest in applying for the job of President. March
22 and 23 are expected to be the dates of the first round of interviews.
F. Confidentiality of Presidential Search Process (PSCR l )
Mr. Stuckert continued his report with the first of the two resolutions, PSCR l, which
recommends that the [search] process remain confidential until the Committee reaches the stage
of finalists, that the candidates be queried regarding confidentiality, and that the process become
open only if all finalists agree. He moved approval of this resolution. Mr. Gatton seconded.
Ms. Brothers made a statement that she agreed with the purpose ofthe resolution and that
she felt UK would be risking having a reduced and less diverse pool of applicants if the search
process were completely open.
Dr. Brockman asked for additional comments. Mr. Stuckert then moved approval of
PSCR l. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gatton and passed without dissent. (See PSCR l at
the end of the Minutes.)
G. Process for Introduction of Presidential Candidate (PSCR 2)
Mr. Stuckert stated that this resolution seeks approval from the Board of Trustees of the
recommendation ofthe Presidential Search Committee to bring in one preferred candidate to
introduce to campus prior to making the final commitment of executing the contract. He made a
motion for approval, it was seconded by Mr. Mobley.
Dr. Peek expressed doubts about the necessity of having both of these resolutions. He
felt that because there is almost a zero probability ofthe first situation happening (in which all
candidates would agree to have their applications for the job released before a job offer is made
to one), all that is needed is PSCR 2. Discussion followed on this point, and Legal Counsel was
consulted. It was eventually decided that both resolutions should stand. Dr. Peek and other
board members asked about and discussed further the intent of PSCR 2. After the discussion,
Dr. Brockman conducted the vote, and PSCR 2 passed without dissent. (See PSCR 2 at the end
Dr. Brockman requested the Presidents Report.