An Anonymous Consultant has asked me to open a discussion on Greenway's performance.
But I don't think s/he expected me to, because that was his/her point. I do not know much about Greenway's performance as a seminary president other than his relationship with Indiana Wesleyan University, the Wesleyan Church, and with the faculty of Asbury.
Thus anonymous says,
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).
My thoughts: But Jeff's performance is not the stated reason for his termination. "Insubordination" is. These are not the reasons the EXCO has given toward Greenway's termination. And apparently, nothing from the evaluation is being given to the broader board in explanation. In other words, the EXCO itself apparently has not, to this point, given any evidence from the evaluation in favor of his leave or the motion toward his termination.
Anonymous says,
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?
My thoughts: I would be delighted for the full board to make a determination based on a fair and impartial review. I have only argued that Greenway is being railroaded here, not that he should be president after a fair review. I can't know that.
Anonymous:
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.
My thoughts: This seems like a fair enough list, but I don't think it is the 6 point list that the board approved last year to be the basis for Greenway's evaluation.
Anonymous says: 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.
My thoughts: Certainly if the board would like to use my blog as a whiteboard, they are welcome to. :-) Of course that would be inappropriate. But as far as I can tell, no one has been able to come up with any glaring failure or weakness that would seem to justify puting him on leave pending his termination.
I think it would have been a great idea 32 days ago even to put him on leave pending such a fair and objective 3rd party evaluation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
actually - could anyone comment on the consultant's request?
I too found it surprising how the discussion has turned towards the board. Remember that the only reason that Jeff felt it proper to not return to the review (and thus called insubordinate) was that he did not think it was a fair representation.
And the interesting thing about the "we wonder" posts is that they all focus on the board.
That makes me wonder if it matters more to the faculty that the board is found at fault than Jeff remain president.
--curious onlooker
Ken, your comment
"I have only argued that Greenway is being railroaded here, not that he should be president after a fair review. I can't know that."
seems to illustrate a different position than you had earlier. is this so?
Dale
If it's different I don't know how. How does it seem different?
My hunch is that they don't have sufficient grounds to fire him and that this is part of why they're hiding behind the insubordination charge. In other words, if he was given a fair evaluation, I think he would pass.
But as far as I can remember (see buried far below my entry "My Recommendation to Asbury"), I have always thought that the first step was a complete reevaluation conducted fairly and evaluated by the entire board.
Is this different in some way?
Dale, the one new thought at the end of this post was that even if they had put him on leave to conduct such an evaluation, that would have been greatly preferable to what they have done, which is presume his termination. I suggested long ago, though, that he should have been restored to office after he apologized.
It would seem to me that there are some people who are getting rather ruffled regarding this bloggers honorable quest for truth. I have seen many a challenge thrown his way, and all have been met. It would seem that changing the subject from what has been said, and in most cases substantiated, to what someone might or might not have the ability to know is a pretty elementary form of argument/debate.
I really have no stakein this whole mess other than the fact that I'll be searching for a Methodist approved seminary in a few years. As it stands now, I have a difficult time seeing how ANYONE could choose Asbury at this toime given the complete and total mishandling of the situation by what I see as All parties involved.
Grow up and serve Christ. Not your own worldly agendas. This is a dispicable example of what happens when humanity gets involved in anything.
It is my prayer that God will grant a great deal of discernment to all those involved. That those parties would prayerfully search their hearts and find Christ's love as their guiding principle. I also prayh that the school that I have looked at for some time now will recover from this plague, and rise again as Lazurus.
Pax Christi,
KN
Anonymous, I am not sure what to make of your comment that "the 'we wonder' posts...all focus on the board." I think that a close reading will reveal that none of them focus on the board. The persons signing the We Wonder documents, like the vast majority of the faculty, are keen for the board to meet and to address this situation. Those who have signed the We Wonder series have consistently focused on processes piloted by the Board Chair-appointed ad hoc review committee and/or the Board Chair, and/or the Executive Committee of the Board. But the board itself has not yet been a player in the situation; for their entry into the process we await 17 October. For most of us, the question is not who is found at fault -- the board vs. President Greenway -- but rather that these processes exhibit the ethos and faith of Asbury Theological Seminary. / Joel B. Green
I don't understand this request. Why should we try to discuss the president's actual performance when this has never been the issue reported to the seminary community? First it was "he has divided the students, faculty, and staff," and then it was "he was insubordinate." If it was about performance all along, why these other smokescreens? It can't be that they wanted to "protect" Jeff by not telling the truth, since what they did say was career-ruining all by itself. This sounds like another attempt to change the subject.
The rationale for my request is simple. I want to know if Jeff Greenway should be the president of Asbury Seminary.
Let me jump in on y'all's anonymous conversation. I can understand why someone might want to know if Jeff Greenway should be president. I am not sure why this is relevant to the present debate, however. As far as I know, we are not discussing whether Jeff Greenway should be president. The question is whether he has been and is being given due process by the Board Chair-appointed review committee and by the Executive Committee of the Board. / Joel B. Green
Joel, Looking for clarification.
What is the board meeting to decide October 17th?
Is the "we wonder" series by the faculty focused exclusively on the process?
At this juncture, what would "success" be for the We Wonder group?
By the way, can we beef up the name, the "We Wonder" group? I was thinking of something like the "Wondercats."
Hello, anonymous. (1) My understanding of the declared purpose of the called meeting of the ATS Board of Trustees in 17 October is to address the question of President Greenway's relationship to the Seminary. Regarding the other two questions, I cannot speak on behalf of the "group" without first discussing those specific questions with them. I can speak for myself, however. (2) I see the "We Wonder..." series as essentially focused on issues of process. (3) I cannot imagine any outcome to the present situation that would be worthy of the label "success." What I can hope for is that the "We Wonder..." series helps to promote good process as well as transparent conversation about among the Board when it meets as a whole.
"I cannot imagine any outcome to the present situation that would be worthy of the label 'success.'"
This really saddens me, although I agree. As an Asbury grad (and someone who was thinking of doing my doctoral work through Asbury), I hate that sin (all parties) is doing so much damage. I am hoping that God will use this situation to teach us (the Christian community) about reconciliation.
Post a Comment