Who was the consultant?

I'm going to plod on... three more weeks... just so those who want us to tire of the subject will have to face a still fresh topic in October. Ugh!

And let me say that I am extremely irritated with Jim Smith calling the Board of Trustees so late in the game--in October just 2 days within its legal deadline. You'll have a hard time convincing me that this isn't politics. If there were any thought of restoring Greenway, they would have been called as soon as possible (which would have been within 10 days).

And of course the best course of action for the seminary would have been to call the BOT as soon as possible. Instead, we are forced to deal with the ever more pungent smell of decaying flesh at Asbury. Just think, if they had called the board immediately, the situation would already be resolved one way or another.

Good intentions on Smith's part? I'm still willing to think so. It's a smart move from his perspective. Emotions might go down if people will stop talking. Let everyone get tired of the subject to where they just want it to go away. Make the date and location secret so people can't lobby the board as effectively.

But that doesn't mean it was the right decision or that we have to like it. One way or another, when this is all done, resignandus est smithus. There's no other option apart from a miracle. The miracle would be sincere repentance from all parties--the core EC, Greenway, the faculty, [me], everyone--with an astounding reconciliation. And since I believe in free will, God's not going to force anyone to do these things. And I have moved far from optimistic for anyone to budge.

______________
So let me now begin to try to answer some of my interpretive questions that resulted from my detailed observation of Dan Johnson's public comments. Here is a definitional question, "Who was the consultant?" A rational question might be, "Why did Smith ask him to be the consultant?" Here's another one, a modal one, "How has the consultant actually functioned throughout this process?" And of course I would remiss if I didn't add further, "Implications?"

1. Evidence:
One website says this: He is "president of [insert organization], requested on Friday, April 29, 2005 that the board of directors initiate the process of finding his successor. He will have served as president of [it] for twelve years at the effective date of his retirement, June 30, 2006."

Inference:
This is a very competent guy with lots of experience. My earlier questions suggested that he comes high recommended. Indeed! This is an impressive guy. I was particularly impressed by one quote on that webpage by him: ""When I turned 60, I adopted the motto 'peak at 80' and so I look forward to many adventures ahead, probably staying close to my passion of helping CEOs and boards achieve worthy goals."

2. Evidence:
Johnson's public comment on the consultant went like this: "the full board had approved the use of a task force and understood it was the chairman’s role to conduct the process. Dr. Smith again invited [him] to assist, this time wanting what has become popular in many organizations, the so-called "360 degree" evaluation."

Further, "Dr. Smith provided twelve names to [him] and asked him to conduct phone interviews with those people, some of whom were suggested by Dr. Greenway and some by task force members." The questions were "five open-ended questions given to those selected to be in the 360: (1) How would you describe President Greenway’s leadership? (2) What specific advancements in the Seminary’s life (list of all areas) would attribute primarily to President Greenway’s leadership? (3) How would you describe President Greenway’s relationships with the following groups with which you are familiar (faculty, staff, students, trustees, alumni, donors, friends of the seminary)? (4) In what areas of presidential leadership would you hope that President Greenway could improve? (5) Additional comments?"

However, according to Johnson's statement: "The three recommendations in the fall of 2005 asked Dr. Greenway to work with an executive coach to help him in his first presidency in academia; to work with a professional consultant in fund-raising, a major role of the president

Inference:
Smith was apparently not using the consultant for the purposes directed by the board. He was using him for other purposes. Perhaps this is fully within his right as chair. We note, however, that he is not said here to work with the president at all or to be hired for such. Yet this was the purpose sanctioned by the board. None of the questions in the 360 have anything to do with tasks for which the BOT authorized a consultant, like fund raising, for example.

3. Rumor
The consultant did not support Greenway as the preferred candidate when he was being considered for the presidency.

Inference:
I don't know if this is true. Peter Kerr's piece insinuated something like this, but Johnson has flatly denied that he knew Steve Moore at that time. We should note, however, that if he in fact did not think Greenway or someone like Greenway was the best candidate previously, it raises questions about Smith hiring him.

4. Rumor
I relayed a rumor when I asked this question: "Is it true that the consultant indicated that, in his opinion, the Greenway Presidency had about a 2% chance of success?"

Inference:
If that's true, then we could understand why the task force would think that Greenway's demise was imminent. They haven't admitted this, hiding behind the insubordination charge. But (this is the exploding universe point) it seems well nigh impossible to deny that they were well on a course for Greenway's resignation before he first entered the room on October 31. I believe we have good reason to think this of Smith well before October 30. But I think the bulk of the task force was on board when they saw the consultant's results that night.

By the way, we have no reason to think that the consultant does not sincerely believe Greenway to be a disaster for Asbury. Similarly, we have no reason to think that Smith does not genuinely believe that Greenway is a disaster for Asbury. My goal in this post is not to malign the consultant--or to malign Smith. It is to raise the strong possibility that the process might not have been a Spock-like exercise in objectivity. The data was no doubt true for what it was. It just may not have been a fair respresentation of the whole community.

Why deny at least some of this? You don't have to share the details. Just stop hiding behind the insubordination thing as the main issue here or the efficient cause of this thing. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU! The insubordination charge may sink Greenway, but this procedure should sink at least Smith. Clean our palettes of this foul taste!

5. Evidence
Johnson describes the 360 process in the following terms: "chairman Smith invited Dr. Greenway and members of the task force for names of administrators, faculty, staff, students and others. An equal number from Dr. Greenway and from task force members were selected to provide confidential written input. Not all suggested were included, of course, so no one would be sure who was involved. Dr. Smith provided twelve names to [him] and asked him to conduct phone interviews with those people, some of whom were suggested by Dr. Greenway and some by task force members... The task force reviewed a summary of trustee and non-trustee written feedback prepared by Dr. Smith, essentially a cut and paste from the responses. We also had a six-page written summary of [his] phone interviews (which averaged 45 minutes each)."

Inferences:
I don't necessarily object to this procedure as qualitative research. It is not quantitative research that would constitute hard data. Open ended questions with such an easily polarized result only suggest avenues for further study. As even Johnson suggests, the results are subject to multiple interpretations.

Yet the universe will surely explode if what Jim Holsinger didn't share with Greenway had something to do with his doom, that betrayal the rest of the task force felt when he left the room with Greenway. The data, by its very nature, could not have suggested such a conclusion on any sure basis. Maybe the task force knew other things. But this data, by its very qualitative, potentially polarizing, and open ended nature, could only have suggested more rigorous quantitative study.

6. Rumor from outside Asbury:
I want to be very careful here. This rumor is based on two specific comments that may not be validly generalized. But one might infer that some consultants are willing to help others get around "the system," presumably in relation to causes in which he believes of course. We're just wondering if he's a good friend to have when you want to be "wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove." I offer this as a rumor I believe. I offer no evidence, so you can completely reject it as pure speculation. I will not tell you the specifics of where I heard this one, but I believe it.

Inference:
He might have had skills at helping a group of 4 people convinced they had the wrong president to conduct a 360 in such a way that it looked maximally bad for the target person. Again, these can be valuable skills for the kingdom--I'm glad some Christians have them. I think the book of Acts tries to make the early Christians look maximally good.

Conclusion:
I hope I never have this consultant for an enemy and that none of my enemies have enough money to hire him.

We end this post with a quote from Oscar Wilde that I have made the motto of my blog at least until October 17: "The truth is never pure and rarely simple."