The KDL is under construction

University of Kentucky materials are on ExploreUK. This item: Image 4 of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2010-09-14.

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 4 of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees, 2010-09-14

Part of Minutes of the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees

-4- members for 2009- l0 evaluated the president’s perfonnance. In addition, the UK Faculty Senate and Staff Senate received the same questions and offered their responses. Responses are submitted to Peggy Way, who handles board correspondence, and results were tabulated by Mr. Miles and Ms. May. The tabulation sheet shows that the president scored 95.68 percent on the evaluation fonn, which was then rounded to a score of 96 percent. This score will be used to calculate this year’s bonus. The results were shared with the president, and comments were passed on to him. Mr. Miles then offered a history ofthe establishment ofthe president’s salary and other compensation. When the president was hired in 200l, a state law required that no president of a Kentucky state university could receive a salary higher than that of the chair ofthe Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE), the agency in Frankfort that govems all state universities. Many ofthe other state schools, and particularly the University of Louisville, had private foundations that could pay additional amounts to their presidents, and therefore, their presidents were able to receive total compensation above the amount of the salary ofthe CPE chair. President Todd came to the university with a business background, making a salary far above that ofthe CPE chair. The Board wished to pay him more than the CPE amount, so the idea was born to offer a salary plus a bonus on a recurring basis that could put UK’s president on an equal footing with other state university presidents. That President Todd has consistently refused to accept the bonus has dismayed Board members for nine years in that they know he is underpaid for his job. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that, having received the president’s announced retirement in June 20l l, the board now needs to hire a new president, and UK’s ostensible salary is among the lowest among our peer universities. A proposed solution was reached by the Board’s Executive Committee in its meeting on September 9, which Dr. Brockrnan explained with his slide presentation. Mr. Miles opened the floor to discussion by the members ofthe Board. Many members ofthe Board offered their comments, including Mr. Shoop, Mr. Stuckert, Mr. Smith, Dr. Gannon, Dr. McCorvey, Mr. Gatton, Ms. Brothers, Dr. Peek, Ms. May, Ms. Curris, and Mr. Roberts. Mr. Miles called for a reading ofthe recommendations of the Executive Committee. Ms. May stated: "The motion that came out ofthe Executive Committee, Mr. Chair, is that the officer’s base compensation shall be increased by the amount of $157,046 and be effective for fiscal years 2009-l0 and 20l0-ll. The officer’s base compensation for fiscal year 2010-ll may be further increased by means of a performance-based incentive of an amount not to exceed $50,000.” Mr. Miles asked for a motion to vote on the recommendations and Ms. Patterson moved for the motion, Mr. Stuckert seconded.

Hosted by the University of Kentucky

Contact us: