MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY
DECEMBER 1, 2009
- 1. Roll Call
Present- Ms. Elizabeth Bradbury, Governor (by conference call)
Mr. Michael Duggan, Governor (by conference call)
Mr. Gordon Elliott, Governor
Mr. Brian Hammons, Chair of the Board
Ms. Ashley Hoyer, Student Governor
Mr. Orvin Kimbrough, Governor (by conference call)
Ms. Mary Sheid, Governor (by conference call)
Ms. Cathy Smith, Governor (by conference call)
Ms. Phyllis Washington, Vice-Chair of the Board (by conference call)
Mr. John Winston, Governor (by conference call)
Present- Michael Nietzel, President
Earle Doman, Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students
Belinda McCarthy, Provost
Ken McClure, Vice President for Administrative and Information Services
Nila Hayes, Chief Financial Officer
Paul Kincaid, Chief of Staff
Clifton Smart, General Counsel
John McAlear, Secretary of the Board
2. Presiding --- The presiding officer for the meeting was Mr. Brian Hammons, Chair of the Board of Governors. He called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. in the Carrington Hall Room 203 on the campus of Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri.
3. Purchases/Contracts --- Ms. Nila Hayes, Chief Financial Officer, presented a resolution (Purchasing Activity Report No. 341-09) for purchasing activities from October 15, 2009, through November 25, 2009. This report includes simulation mannequins for the Department of Nursing at a cost of $189,947.90. Ms. Hayes mentioned that the funding sentence at the bottom of the action should be corrected to read: “Funding for this program is from a State appropriation of Federal budget stabilization funds specific to Caring For Missourians.” Motion and second were provided, respectively, by Mr. Elliott and Mr. Winston.
Motion passed 9-0.
4. Presidential Search:
a. Revision of Governing Policy --- Mr. Clif Smart presented a resolution (Board Policies No. 57-09) revising the governing policy dealing with the Presidential Search Process which is numbered G1.23 in the draft Policy manual distributed for review at the October meeting. He explained that the two major changes to this governing policy are: 1) that the Board designates the Chair of the Search Committee, instead of the Search Committee appointing its own Chair; and 2) that the Search Committee may utilize a search firm to assist in the process at its discretion. Mr. Elliott commented that it should be a Board decision to hire a search firm, and not left up to the Search Committee. Several other governors agreed and Mr. Winston moved to approve the proposed wording after striking the sentence that says: “The Committee may utilize a search firm to assist in this work at its discretion.” Ms. Washington provided the second to Mr. Winston’s motion.
Motion passed 9-0.
Mr. Hammons explained that a Request for Proposal (RFP) had already been sent out seeking responses from Search Firms on how they might assist the University with the presidential search and the cost to do so. Several governors asked to see the RFP and Mr. Hammons asked Mr. McAlear to make sure that the entire Board receives the RFP.
b. Mr. Hammons then led a discussion on the presidential search process by reviewing three documents that Mr. McAlear had previously e-mailed to each of the governors:
Presidential Search Committee Charge
Mr. Hammons summarized that the search committee should seek applications for the position and screen the applicant pool down to about 8-10 candidates for in-depth interviews and then recommend the top finalists (3-4) to the Board who will interview each of the finalists. He indicated that he had asked Mr. Duggan to chair the committee. It was again mentioned that the reference to allowing the search committee, at its discretion, to utilize a professional search firm needed to be deleted from the Charge as most of the governors stressed that this should be a decision for the Board to make. Several of the governors indicated that hiring a professional search firm would be money well spent in helping the Board make such an important decision.
Presidential Search Timeline
Mr. Hammons then turned to a proposed timeline that would have the search committee recommend 3-4 finalists by April 19, 2009, which would allow the three finalists to come to campus in late April or early May to be interviewed by the Board and the campus community. Some of the governors thought this was too much of a compressed time frame and mentioned that the finalists’ campus visits could be done early in the Fall semester. It was decided to have Mr. Hammons come back with two alternatives to the time line presented – one with the finalists coming to campus in the summer and another with them coming to campus during the Fall semester. However, both Student Governor Hoyer and Dr. Belinda McCarthy, Provost, stressed the importance of having the campus visits during the regular academic year so both the students and faculty are on campus to participate.
Presidential Search Committee
Mr. Hammons next proposed a search committee of fifteen made up of three governors, two students, four faculty, two staff, two alumni/community representatives, one from the academic administration, and one from the administrative council. He explained that this proposal was a smaller committee than the 2004/05 eighteen-person search committee. Some governors questioned whether a committee of fifteen was still too large. Other comments were that there should be fewer members from the three campus constituencies – students, faculty, and staff – and additional members from our more successful alumni. It was also mentioned that due to the University’s budget crisis, it might be beneficial to have someone on the committee with a strong financial background.
Mr. Kimbrough had to leave the conference call at this time. In wrapping up the meeting, it was decided that the Board should meet again on Thursday night, December 17, 2009, the day before the next regularly scheduled meeting. The purpose of that meeting is to come to an agreement on a search timeline and the makeup of the search committee so the Board can appoint a committee at the December 18 meeting. Mr. McAlear was asked to arrange for a meeting room that evening.
5. Date of Next Meeting --- The date of the next meeting was set for Thursday, December 17, 2009, time and place to be determined.
6. Adjournment--- Mr. Hammons adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m. on the motion of Ms. Washington, the second of Ms. Sheid, and the unanimous vote of the Board.
John W. McAlear