5. Conclusion
Almost any form of evaluation has its limitations. The Board’s process utilized several
techniques to gather input to help it form a conclusion about the President’s performance during
his first year. Inputs were solicited using forms calling for numerical scores and comments, an
interview process conducted by a Consultant unaffiliated with the University, and the President’
self-evaluation and interview.
The report speaks for itself. However, based upon the Consultant’s experience and the
information gathered and reviewed by him during the evaluation process, the Consultant is of the
opinion that President Capilouto is seen by most of those interviewed has having the integrity,
personality, leadership skills and vision to lead the University of Kentucky. Most respondents
sensed a commitment to the institution and an understanding of its constituents. All in all, the
President’s first year was viewed very favorably. Generally speaking, the participants in the
evaluation process wish the President well, and want to support his efforts to advance the
reputation and quality of the University of Kentucky.
As would be expected at an institution of the complexity and diversity of the University of
Kentucky, there are some concerns.
The first concern relates to communications. Several interviewees expressed concerns related to
the level, content, and nature of communications between or among the President, the Board, the
various university constituencies, the media, the state legislature, and the general public. In times
of uncertainty and change, aggressive campus and Commonwealth communications programs
should clearly prove helpful in advancing the agenda of the University.
Several interviewees also expressed concerns relating to organizational matters, including the
building of a solid leadership team and appointments to fill existing vacancies in important
positions. Some respondents considered the filling of these posts in a timely matter to be critical
to the future of the University.

Presidential	Evaluation	2012,	Consultant’s	Report	

Page	22