Higher education system governance: an exploratory study of presidential decision making in the kentucky community and technical college system

Feedback and recommendations. Interview and document analysis echoed the roles and responsibilities of the KCTCS Board of Regents and college boards of directors; however, in order for them to exercise their authority, the boards require ongoing communication and information from the presidents. Outlined in KRS 164.465 Duty of Presidents of Postsecondary Education Institutions to Distribute Information to University’s Governing Board Members are duties of presidents of postsecondary education institutions to distribute information to governing board members.
Although presidents communicated with their respective board, the boards also served as a source of feedback and recommendations for presidents to use in their decision making. Michael explained that because of their statutory responsibilities, presidents reported to their respective board of regents, saying:
Because they have three statutory responsibilities, we report to them regularly...on the state of the budget, we report to them on the kinds of college activities, particularly what I would call strategic issues like facilities development [and] facilities planning...They have three things that do impact the operations of the college administrative operations. And that is they evaluate me and they help to identify for me the things that they are particularly interested in us pursuing as a college.
In this regard, the boards of directors were a source of feedback and recommendation for presidents, which often occurred during regular reporting of information and through presidential evaluations.
Furthermore, Sam explained the importance of the boards of directors as a source of feedback: “Even though they don’t have a specific statutory role in the approval of every little detail of college operations, I think the hope and desire is that they are actively engaged in the feedback loop.” Sam also illustrated how this feedback was obtained through presidential evaluations: “…they evaluate me and they help to identify for me the things that they are particularly interested in us pursuing as a college. So, in that way, they are helping to set the strategic direction by their interaction with me related to my evaluation.” In this manner, the boards further influenced decision making and the direction of the system and colleges through the evaluation of the KCTCS president and college presidents.
John illustrated that even though the scope of authority and responsibility of the boards of directors was limited, there was a two-way exchange of information that aided decision making, saying:
I really believe firmly that I have to keep them informed...I do keep them informed. As far as local, I want them to know even though they don’t hire or fire me, they evaluate me...they don’t make any decisions regarding anything that we do...I do ask their opinion. I think that’s important. I want their feedback...We try to be open and transparent and tell them. But it is not their role to be meddling in the college’s business. That’s just not it. However, they do bring great ideas to me. And I’m very open to those.
For John, the level of authority and responsibility of the boards of directors was clear, but this did not limit the extent to which he shared information with them and sought their feedback and recommendations.
Communication between the KCTCS president and college presidents, and the KCTCS Board of Regents, or between the college presidents and their board of directors involved regular reporting of information within the scope of their responsibilities and authority. In addition, dialog between a board and president in the form of feedback and recommendations helped engage board members and guided presidents in their decision making. In this way, decision making was not made in a vacuum, but instead, was made with the advice of the board.