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 3 of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2011-10-25

Part of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees

item | thumbnails | details | text | pdf
Download this image
There were two different issues that the Committee wanted to address. Deputy Director of Athletics Mark Coyle was nice enough to do some research for the Committee in regard to other Southeastem Conference (SEC) schools, Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), and UK’s benchmarks involving how they were organized as far as the athletic relationship to the university and to their boards. The result ofthe research showed that organizations are what they are because of the history ofthe particular institution. Organizations have always been that way, and they are a little hesitant to change after many years as was the case in UK’s situation. There was a lot of good infonnation showing some institutions went from having outside foundations to different types of groups, therefore, the Committee got a sense that the infonnation was good. The Committee was interested in going forward and deciding what would serve the University, the Board of Trustees, and the Athletics Department best as far as a practice and organizational structure for the future. With that in mind, the Committee was 100 percent in agreement that the current organizational and committee structure ofthe Board of Trustees and the University has functioned well with the structure of the committees: Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Investment, Finance, and University Health Care. As visible as athletics is at the University, it was obvious that there was not an Athletics Committee. Athletics is viewed by some Board members and many constituents as the front porch to the University. For a lot of different reasons, the University would be best served by having an Athletics Committee as a part ofthe Board of Trustees structure going forward. The Committee used the University Health Care Committee as a parallel measure because it also reaches out and has community members as a part of the committee under the Board of Trustees. There would be five members ofthe Board of Trustees on the Board committee and three community members. The only difference in the University Health Care Committee and the Athletics Committee will be that the President will appoint the Board of Trustees members to the Athletics Committee. That is because of a NCAA regulation as it relates to institutional control which the University must adhere to and be in compliance. This will be the recommendation in the Goveming Regulation that will be presented to the Board later in the meeting. The recommendation brought up the question of what to do with the current Athletic Association Board of Directors that is an affiliated corporation ofthe University. When you take the responsibility that it has had and move it to a committee under the Board, there is very little from a responsibility point of view that the Board would be doing. Basically, the Committee is recommending that the Athletic Association Board of Directors be dissolved. This is a legal process that will take some time to do. The Committee recognized that there is power in having faculty, students, and community individuals involved, therefore, the Athletic Association Board of Directors could be an Athletic Advisory Committee just to continue getting input from the different constituencies that make up the fanbase of UK athletics. Either President Capilouto or someone has talked to members ofthe Athletic Board, and they understand what is going on with the efforts ofthe Committee. The Committee tried to not have any secrets and to be as transparent as possible. The Committee feels very comfortable with the recommendation and is supportive of it. It looks right. It feels right. And, it is the right thing for the Board of Trustees to do as the University moves into the future. -3-