Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Asbury Faculty and Administration Wonder #3

The third installment:

The flurry of reports and narratives dating from 1 September 2006 has shed light on and generated heat regarding the critical situation in which Asbury Theological Seminary now finds itself. We are left with a number of questions. This is the third.

We wonder why the Faculty, Student, and Staff Representatives to the Board have not been invited to the meeting of the Board of Trustees on October 17, 2006.

According to the Standards of Accreditation, The Association of Theological Schools, Commission on Accreditation, a seminary’s "governance is based on a bond of trust among boards, administration, faculty, students, and ecclesial bodies" (§8). Moreover, "shared governance follows from the collegial nature of theological education. Unique and overlapping roles and responsibilities of the governing board, faculty, administrators, students, and other identified delegated authorities should be defined in a way that allows all partners to exercise their mandated or delegated leadership" (§8.2.2). Even though we understand that the Board of Trustees may wish to move into executive session during its meeting on October 17, 2006, given

(1) the principle of shared governance;

(2) the provision for faculty, staff, and student representatives to the Board of Trustees, and particularly the mandate given them to "represent the viewpoint of their respective constituencies in Board discussions" (The By-Laws of Asbury Theological Seminary, rev. May 2002, Article III, Section H);

(3) the report to the administration, faculty, staff, and students from Board Chair Dr. Jim Smith and Board Vice-Chair Dr. Dan Johnson that the negative assessment of President Greenway’s presidency was due to his influence among these constituent groups of the Seminary community; and

(4) the significance for all constituents of the Seminary community of a decision regarding the disposition of President Greenway’s contract,

we wonder why the representative voices of faculty, students, and staff would be excluded from the entire meeting of the Board of Trustees.

Signed:
Kenneth A. Boyd, Ph.D., Professor of Instructional Design
Allan Coppedge, Ph.D., Ralph Waldo Beeson Professor of Christian Theology
Ronald K. Crandall, D.Th.P., McCreless Professor of Evangelism and Sundo Kim Professor of Evangelism and Practical Theology
Richard L. Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Leadership and Christian Ministry
Joel B. Green, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Chuck Gutenson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology
Virginia Todd Holeman, Ph.D., Professor of Counseling
Eunice L. Irwin, Ph.D., Associate Professor: Mission and Contextual Theology
C. Reginald Johnson, Ph.D., Roy and Weezie Anderson Professor of Prayer and Spiritual Formation
Hugo Magallanes, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Church in Society
Tapiwa Mucherera, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pastoral Counseling
Terry C. Muck, Ph.D., Professor of Missions and World Religions
M. Robert Mulholland Jr., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Christine Pohl, Ph.D., Professor of Church in Society
Ruth Anne Reese, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Lester Ruth, Ph.D., Lily May Jarvis Professor of Christian Worship
Michael A. Rynkiewich, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology
Daryl Smith, Ed.D., Associate Professor of Mentored Ministry and Christian Leadership
Catherine Stonehouse, Ph.D., Orlean Bullard Beeson Professor of Christian Discipleship
Thomas F. Tumblin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian Leadership
Robert G. Tuttle, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of World Christianity
Jerry L. Walls, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy of Religion
Ben Witherington III, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Laurence W. Wood, Ph.D., Frank Paul Morris Professor of Systematic Theology

3 comments:

Ken Schenck said...

I swear, whatever his intentions, how could anyone have any reasonable doubt that Jim Smith isn't doing his level best to stack the political odds in his and whoever's favor against Greenway after all these bits of information? That is not unethical behavior, but let's call a spade a spade. Smith (and whoever) is using all the privileges of his power to make sure Greenway never walks again, including:

1. planning this meeting as far away as possible (this matter could have been solved by the board some 18 days ago, I think--the 17th is only 2 days before the absolute last when he had to call the meeting)

2. without wanting anyone to know when or where it was taking place

3. without Greenway present

4. eliminating the presence of as many voices as possible that would be sympathetic to Greenway

5. completely ignoring what appears to be the will of the clear, non-EXCO majority of all Asbury constituencies, most noticeably the faculty

He may think he's doing what's good for the seminary, but he's certainly not trying to set up a situation where he plans to submit either to

1) an objective assessment of Greenway (in other words, the question he is setting up is not one of truth but of his angle prevailing) or

2) the clear will of the majority. There is no sense of submission to anything but his foregone conclusion in his approach, to nothing other than what he and those egging him on have already decided.

I don't see how you could argue the evidence any other way.

Ken Schenck said...

By the way, what was one of those charges brought against Greenway... that he had an autocratic leadership style?

Ken Schenck said...

This was Chuck Gutenson's response to my comment here:

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your interpretation, I have found myself reflecting on some comments that have made about a particular “orthodoxy” and “group think” that has arisen in the course of this discussion. I think their may be something to this, but perhaps not for the reasons suggested. If one takes Professor Kerr’s document, version 1.1 and sets it beside Vice Chairman Dr. Johnson’s statement of 9/18 and if we do what is suggested (namely, apply logical analysis, strip out all emotion and speculation as to motives), we arrive at a pretty consistent statement regarding the flow of events and the applicable sections of the ByLaws and the Board Policies (though, I am not citing those in this summary).

It seems there is agreement that:

1. the board policies mandate that the president’s review be based on agreed to performance objectives, and that these were not discussed with the president.

2. an informal, anecdotal survey was the initial basis for discussion.

3. the Chair appointed task force was given a summary of this anecdotal survey by the Board Chair which was a “cut and paste” summary made by the Chair.

4. the informal, anecdotal survey was non-scientific with the 12 persons interviewed being solely selected by the Board Chair and the interviews carried out by a consultant.

5. the result of the anecdotal, non-scientific survey presented two different views of President Greenway and his leadership.

6. the Chair appointed task force gave the president about an hour to read a 34 page document summarizing parts of the review.

7. the president had no reason to expect such a negative review and the committee’s findings took him by surprise.

8. the president was instructed to stand down from his presidential duties for the day while the review was to be processed.

9. a member of the Chair appointed task force indicated to the president that the president was being asked to resign or be fired.

10. this member communicated some of “the task force’s member’s concerns” and no effort was made to correct any miscommunication.

11. the president went home to discuss these matters with his family.

12. communications broke down after this with the president refusing to return for further discussions on that day.

13. the Chair appointed task force initially placed President Greenway on leave and this decision was extended at the subsequent Executive Committee meeting.

14. the initial announcement regarding the leave made it clear that there were no “smoking gun” issues involving ethical, moral, or legal matters.

15. the Executive Committee did not ask the president to return to meet with them on the following Tuesday.

16. the president issued a statement offering an apology for his initial reaction and asking for third-party mediation.

17. the faculty passed, by a large margin, a number of resolutions expressing full confidence in President Greenway.

18. communication since have occurred primarily through lawyers.

19. there is no one fulfilling the role of president or chief executive at the moment.