The Asbury Faculty Perspective

To balance Johnson's perspective, here is the resolution passed by the faculty on September 5:

_____________________________
We, the plenary faculty of Asbury Theological Seminary, meeting this day of September 5, 2006, resolve that,

Whereas,
(1) Board of Trustees’ policy clearly provides for the role and responsibility of the Faculty in Shared Governance. By definition, the Faculty is a political unit central to the governance of the institution, including faculty involvement in the removal of a president: “A member of the Administration may be removed from office by disciplinary action of the Board of Trustees…Such action shall be taken after careful investigation and recommendation by a special committee consisting of two members of the Board, a member of the Administration, and a member of the faculty, appointed by the chair of the Board of Trustees.” (Art. VII, Sect. E).

Furthermore,
there is no provision for an “Evaluation Committee” that operates separately from the Executive Committee: the By-laws state that the president is to be evaluated by the Executive Committee of the Board and the Chairs of the Board Committees annually in executive session at their Fall meeting (Art. VII, Sect. B). In addition, the By-Laws mandate a triennial review of the president’s contract. This review is to be a full and formal review. In each of the two other years, the By-Laws mandate an annual review, conducted by the Chair of the Board (VII.B).

Furthermore,
the By-laws make clear that the president does not serve at the pleasure of the Board. Neither can the president be dismissed, even for cause, without a process involving an investigative panel consisting of members of the Board, administration, and faculty. Hence, the Faculty is obligated to meet to determine its disposition vis-à-vis the current situation of its president.

Furthermore,
Board policy mandates that the Board review its president according to the goals the Board has set (Board Policies, adopted 12 May 2003, Serial Nos. 3.2, 3.4).

Whereas,
(2) in view of its confidence in the president, the Faculty is distressed and bewildered by action placing the president on indefinite leave, in violation of Board policy, and in view of Dr. Greenway’s strong desire to remain as president.

The Faculty expresses deep appreciation and full confidence in the presidency of Dr. Jeffrey E. Greenway. Although Dr. Greenway has been president of Asbury Theological Seminary for only 26 months, we have found in him a genuine concern for the spiritual and communal health of the Seminary. We have seen demonstrated a capacity to lead from the core of a life centered in Christ, with a capacity for authentic listening and consensus-building. We have discovered a commitment to involving others in shaping vision and decision-making for the Seminary. We affirm his integrity and grace in the care of employees of the Seminary, his persistent call to academic strength in the service of the mission of the church, his faithfulness and effectiveness in fulfilling the administrative responsibilities that belong to his office, and his willing and joyful involvement in the several facets of the life of the Seminary, including spiritual formation, community life, chapel and the classroom. We have found in him a capacity to develop and manage resources that enable the financial integrity of the Seminary.

Our great concern is based upon the following considerations:

In 2005, the Board gave the president seven goals, although instrumentation used to conduct a so-called 360-degree review did not focus on those goals.

Furthermore,
the judgment of the Committee regarding the disposition of the president’s contract [see below*] was not based on a failure of performance vis-à-vis documented goals. Instead, a negative valuation of his presidency was grounded in the perception of a perceived division within the Seminary community. [*At a called meeting of the Board Executive Committee on Thursday, the president was placed on leave until Tuesday’s meeting of the Executive Committee. Prior to the president’s reading the review report, the Executive Committee reported that they had received a report indicating that the ATS community (i.e., its administration, faculty, staff, and students) had been polarized on account of the president’s dictatorial and autocratic style of leadership, raising the question of the viability of his remaining in office. The president was informed that he needed to consider contacting JD Walt immediately, to explain that he would not be in chapel @ 11 that morning. Based on information the president had received prior to his reading the evaluation materials prepared by the Board Chair, it appears that he believed that he was faced with two choices: resign or be fired. It was subsequently communicated formally that the president had been placed on indefinite leave.]

Furthermore,
in accordance with By-law VII.B, the 2006 review should have been an “annual review,” but the chair of the board conducted instead a full and formal review [Note: the employment of instrumentation, interviews, and the appointment of a committee are indicative of a formal review rather than a review conducted by the chair. The only time there is to be a formal evaluation which can involve an outside consultant and the larger Seminary community is for the triennial evaluation which, in this case, should be next year, not this one since this marks the completion of his second year.].

Furthermore,
the reports to the ATS community that the president’s response was without provocation do not represent the course of events and reports outlined above. [Note: the president responded that, if these were his two choices, he would rather resign than be fired. --- And this set off the events variously reported to the Faculty, Staff, and Students on Friday.]

Furthermore,
the announced participation of the chair of the board in administrative functions (Announcement to the Community, 2 September 2006, 12:35 AM) directly contravenes Board Policy. [see Board Policies, Serial Nos. 3.0, 3.2]

Furthermore,
the faculty has no confidence in the evaluative process, for the following reasons:

1. We understand that President Greenway expected to be evaluated on seven goals set at the 2005 annual review and, therefore, this year’s process did not keep faith with expectations set by the Board a year ago.

2. There is a perceived conflict of interest with the consultant chosen for this process. It is widely known that a small faction within the Board has opposed Dr. Greenway from the beginning of his presidency in lieu of another candidate. The consultant was recommended by that candidate.

3. The design of the evaluation is unclear.

 Who were the persons chosen to participate in the evaluation? Are they truly representative of the Seminary’s various constituencies? How many persons actually participated from among all those invited?

 It is unclear how the data were analyzed. For instance how are the multiple comments to be weighted? There is no way of knowing whether a few participants made a majority of comments or whether all the comments reported are representative of the majority of the participants.

4. The conclusion of the report of widespread division among the Seminary’s constituencies over President Greenway’s leadership and concerns about his ability to lead in the future is confusing and not congruent with the faculty’s widespread support of his leadership.

Furthermore,
the detrimental impact of an abrupt interruption of leadership, occurring at the beginning of an academic year, would have long-term negative consequences for the Seminary at a time when the Seminary is experiencing a highpoint in achievements and productivity under Dr. Greenway’s leadership, and it would have devastating consequences for the president and his family, with unwarranted collateral damage to them and the Seminary.

We therefore resolve that

a. we affirm full confidence in the Presidency of Dr. Jeffrey Greenway. Vote results: 45 yes / 8 no / 3 abstentions.

b. we call for the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees immediately to restore Dr. Greenway to his full presidential responsibilities. Vote results: yes 47 / no 8 / 1 abstention.

c. we call for an emergency meeting of the full Board of Trustees to resolve this crisis within the next two weeks. Vote results: 52 yes / 3 no / 1 abstention.

d. we request that Dr. James Smith be removed from his responsibilities as chair of the Board of Trustees because of his inappropriate handling of the evaluation of President Greenway and because of the faculty’s lack of trust in his ability to resolve the profound impasse that these events have cast upon the Seminary. Vote results: 28 yes / 28 no / 1 abstention.

e. In demonstration of our commitment to these resolutions, we hereby declare that there will be no convocation for the 2006-2007 academic year until Dr. Greenway is reinstated to his presidential office. Vote results: 28 yes / 24 no / 2 abstentions.

Respectfully submitted,

The plenary faculty of Asbury Theological Seminary

(signed)
J. Steven O’Malley, faculty representative to the Board of Trustees, on behalf of the academic leadership of the Seminary (Bill T. Arnold, Provost; Leslie Andrews, Associate Provost; Hugo Magallanes, Assistant Provost—Florida Campus; and Deans of the Schools: David Bauer, Reg Johnson, Cathy Stonehouse, Ron Crandall)