Tuesday Cometh #2

In the Meantime
President Greenway did not resign on September 8, nor on Monday the 11th, the day to which he had asked for an extension. Board Chair Smith set October 17th as the day for the broader board to meet to "act on the employment of our president."

In the meantime we have heard little from the board chair except for a general note of encouragement. Some have explained this silence on issues of confidentiality in relation to President Greenway and have suggested it was even in his best interest not to air his dirty laundry in public. President Greenway has also largely kept silent publicly. We get the impression that individual members of the BOT have received numerous emails from many different directions behind the scenes, including a good number of prayers. We also believe that many board members have emailed among themselves.

As for the faculty, about 2/3 of the tenured faculty issued a series of 11 questions called "We Wonder." These questions largely dealt both with events leading up to President Greenway's evaluation as well as the time subsequent. They wondered whether Greenway would be invited to the meeting Tuesday and why faculty and student representatives were not invited to speak for these interest groups.

As far as the process leading up to the evaluation, they had serious questions about conflicts of interest with the consultant who clearly has stood behind the scenes helping guide the Board Chair. There were questions of how the 360 evaluation was conducted and so forth.

But the most significant wonderings had to do with the authority of the Board Chair as an individual or of the EXCO as a subset of the board to direct the actions of the President. The by laws of the seminary accrediting agency state

"The board shall exercise its authority only as a group" (8.3.1.8).

Similarly, Asbury's own Board Policies state that

"the chairperson has no authority to supervise or direct the President" (Serial No: 2.5, 2b), and

"only decisions of the board acting as a body are binding on the President" (Serial No: 3.1).

If this interpretation of Board Policies and of accrediting agency rules is correct, then the Board Chair did not have the authority to demand any specific action of President Greenway in relation to his evaluation, nor did the EXCO have the authority to place him on leave. In other words, if this interpretation is correct, illegal actions have occurred and President Greenway has grounds to sue the seminary. I trust he would never do this, but it shows the wisdom of the Academic Petition submitted by the vast majority of Asbury's faculty.

On the regular meeting of Asbury's Academic Council on October 9, a proposal was drafted by the committee, then subsequently signed by the overwhelming majority of Asbury faculty, and submitted to the board for consideration. This document seems highly respectful and judicious.

It asks for two things in particular: 1) mediation between President Greenway and the Board and 2) the reinstatement of President Greenway while a new evaluation is conducted by a task force appointed by the board as a whole. This course of action seems beyond reproof and would restore our confidence in the seminary. It is hard to imagine any appropriate basis on which it would be rejected.

But meanwhile, an investigative committee seems to have met on October 10 to make an employment recommendation to the BOT. I do not have certain information about its process or outcome except that I know who was supposed to chair it. I have heard rumors, however, that President Greenway did meet with the committee at length. I will say nothing more except my impression that they have not made a favorable motion to the BOT.