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 sixth.
We wonder why the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees has allowed a governance situation to emerge at the Seminary which places us in a vulnerable relationship with The Association of Theological Schools (TATS) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).
In its memorandum of September 5, 2006, the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees requested "that our chairman meet with the senior leaders, representing the board, as much as he is able, until the full board can determine the longer term provision of institutional leadership in the president’s office." Subsequently, the Board Chair has met with the President’s Leadership Steering Team (PLST), has requested copies of its minutes, has participated in the choice of the PLST’s chair in the President’s absence, has countermanded that decision by naming another chair (twice), has directed the work of members of the PLST, and, through members of the PLST, has directed the work of both administration and staff.
In such ways as these, the Board Chair has exercised leadership in both governance and administration and functioned as the de facto chief executive officer of the Seminary, in spite of clear board policies and accreditation standards to the contrary. Although we do not doubt the authority of the Executive Committee, acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees, to appoint an acting or interim president, the Executive Committee has not done so; we presume that, if they were to do so, the chief executive officer would not serve both in this appointed role and in the elected role of a member of the Board of Trustees.
Relevant statements from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Principles of Accreditation:
"The institution has a chief executive officer whose primary responsibility is to the institution and who is not the presiding officer of the board" (2.3).
"There is a clear and appropriate distinction, in writing and practice, between the policy-making functions of the governing board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy" (3.2.6).
Relevant statements from the Standards of Accreditation, The Association of Theological Schools, Commission on Accreditation:
"The governing board is responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the institution’s integrity and its freedom from inappropriate external and internal pressures, and from destructive interference or restraints. It shall attend to the well-being of the institution by exercising proper fiduciary responsibility, adequate financial oversight, proper delegation of authority to the institution’s administrative officers and faculty, and the maintenance of procedural fairness and freedom of inquiry" (8.3.1.1)
"The governing board shall create and employ adequate structures for implementing and administering policy, and shall delegate to the school’s chief administrative leadership authority commensurate with such responsibilities." (8.3.1.6)
"The board shall exercise its authority only as a group. An individual member, unless authorized by the board, shall not commit the institution’s resources nor bind it to any course of action, nor intrude upon the administration of the institution" (8.3.1.8).
Similarly, according to the Asbury Theological Seminary Board Policies (May 12, 2003), "The board will govern with an emphasis on ... clear distinction of board and chief executive roles" (Serial No: 2.2; emphasis added).
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
Randy Jessen, D.Min., Dean, Beeson International Center for Biblical Preaching and Church Leadership
C. Reginald Johnson, Ph.D., Roy and Weezie Anderson Professor of Prayer and Spiritual Formation
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
David L. Thompson, Ph.D., F.M. and Ada Thompson Professor of Biblical Studies
Thomas F. Tumblin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Christian Leadership
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
Now 22 days since Smith could have convened the board and thus 22 days since this crisis could have been resolved.
By the way, what was that charge against Greenway? Hmmm. Wasn't it that he had an autocratic leadership style?
Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle, come in kettle...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I believe Leslie is on the PSTS or whatever it's called. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone on this steering committee has signed the list. Bill Arnold has not signed it, for example. I wouldn't expect them to as they probably need to maintain some sense of neutrality so that they can run the seminary, regardless of their feelings.
There are many legitimate reasons for a person not to sign such documents. I believe the 84% vote to reinstate Greenway as president was a statement in relation to the board's actions, regardless of individual faculty's assessment of Greenway. I continue to believe that the vast majority of the faculty think that the executive committee was wrong to remove Greenway from office.
Lawson's posts are distracting from the real issues, which are whether the EXCO acted appropriately when they put Greenway on leave and whether his failure to return merited this crisis and a committee to fire him.
The answers to me are clearly "no" and "no." I am hoping upon hope that this board will self-correct in some significant way.
Ken.
You have many things to say. I wonder if you (and others) could provide us with some more insight and feedback.
This situation obviously has several layers and unique conditions, but one of the most significant events was the actual performance review of Jeff. It seems that if the review were satisfactory to both sides we would never be in this position. But it wasn’t satisfactory.
Jeff’s response to his negative review was to end the process and claim the process was invalid. Since then, a “flurry” of reports and narratives has surfaced that discuss everything but Jeff’s performance (missteps by certain trustees, interpretations of bylaws, validity of the 360 review, etc.). Sure, there are some references to him being a good guy and upholding the mission of Asbury, but there are not many substantial remarks being made about how he actually performed save successful fundraising (which, as you mentioned earlier, cannot be contributed all to Jeff).
Supposing that the board deems the process was invalid, and supposing that, per Jeff’s wishes, a third party would come in and complete the performance evaluation of Jeff, how specifically would you (and your insiders) quantify Jeff’s success? And – even if the report came back “good,” would there still be merit if the board suggested that one could perform better?
To give good criteria to your response, could your categorize what you know about Jeff’s accomplishments by using the chapter topics of the recent published, A handbook for seminary presidents / edited by G. Douglass Lewis and Lovett H. Weems, Jr.
1. The President's Vocation and Leadership
2. The President's Role in Administration and Personnel Management
3. The President's Role in Governance
4. The President's Role in Defining Mission and Strategic Planning
5. The President as Academic Leader
6. The President's Role in Financial Management
7. The President's Role in Managing Facilities
8. The President's Role in Institutional Advancement
9. The President's Role in Enrollment Management
10. The President's Role with External Authorities
11. Personal and Professional Well-being of a President
12. The President as Symbolic, Culture-forming Leader
Please be as specific as you can. Please be careful to distinguish Jeff’s contribution from “Joe/Jane faculty or administrator.”
I would like to make a request that you, in your spirit of trying to discern the truth, make your answers to this specific question in a new blog entry where others could add to it in the comments.
It seems a memorandum is circulating around the rumor mill--one you seem to have read as well-- in which it is actually affirmed clearly that the Board leadership has in fact been in communication with the SACS/TATS leadership and that the present approach of letting the leadership team administer the school until the Board meets to resolve the crisis.
If that is the case, what becomes of WW#6?
And: did the WW group know about this memorandum? Since they seem to know enough to put up this charge, and it is a charge, not a true question, then I assume they have evidence that the present administrative process has not in fact with the concurrence of SACS/TATS.
So...if the mysteriously circulating memo is right, we are not actually in a governance crisis. If the WW group knew this....???
Anon, I have not read a memo with this information. I will say that what I have read encourages me because it seems clear that Dr. Smith is beholden to the entire board, and I have every reason to think that the broader board is aware both of the We Wonder series and of the arguments that so many of us have been batting about for both "sides."
Of course I fully expect the investigative committee that meets this week to be stacked with one voice against Greenway. I have little doubt but that they will recommend the termination of Greenway as president. If the We Wonder series had not pushed the issue, I suspect that Smith would not have felt a need to hear Greenway's perspective at that point. But now I have a sneaking suspicion that Smith will invite Greenway even if he wouldn't have felt the need to do so otherwise. ;-)
As Larry Wood said a long time ago, I think we all have a good deal of trust in the broader board to do what they think is best. I feel increasingly at rest on the subject.
Post a Comment