Interim University of Kentucky Board Chairman, Billy Joe Miles, made an interesting statement to the Herald-Leader’s Cheryl Truman yesterday.
Miles said he encouraged Todd to renew his contract. He said Todd “rated in the high 90s” on his job performance, which a trustees executive committee was to discuss Thursday.
Maybe we’re hyper-sensitive to reading between the lines, but, uh, isn’t that a little questionable? The Chairman of the Board of Trustees disclosing a performance rating that hadn’t so much has been discussed or assigned? Or, if the performance rating has already been assigned by the Chairman, does this mean the rest of the Board is made up of useless rubber stamps?
Inquiring minds want to know. Because announcing the outcome of a Board meeting that hasn’t taken place is amazing.
Anyone wondering why performance evaluations for Todd from faculty and staff haven’t been discussed? I hear they’re less than stellar, to say the least. I also hear faculty & staff evaluations were, as a whole, treated as a single trustee evaluation. Meaning the entirety of UK’s faculty & staff only carries the weight of 5% of the trustee power. Thought you folks would like to chew on that in light of the news that Todd’s bonus is essentially being shifted to his base pay.