By now most of those who have some connection with Asbury Seminary will have heard of the recent conflict between the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees and the President, Jeff Greenway. We know the official statement of the Executive Committee--Greenway refused to return to his yearly task force review after being given materials to go away and read. Subsequently they determined him to be insubordinate to their authority over him.
At first two trustees apparently understood Greenway to indicate that he would resign, and this Executive Committee had what they considered a generous package for him if he would (pre-prepared?). But he decided not to resign by the Friday the 8th noon deadline they later set after Greenway made a public comment to the campus to the effect that he would remain on leave unless there were fundamental changes in the operation of the board. Presumably the Executive Committee now will convene the broader board with a motion to terminate his presidency.
Okay. This is one of those situations where you can tell just about everything that happened without really knowing what happened. The question on everyone's mind around Asbury is "What's that all about?" Is it simply a matter of Greenway being cross-way with something? The rumor is--and this I don't consider certain information--that he knew that they were already planning to ask him to resign when he returned. So he didn't return.
Okay. That makes sense, but why would they want him to resign in the first place? From what I hear, the seminary is financially sound. Three or four years ago they were laying off people left and right because they were in a major financial pickle. So at least he's not running it in the ground financially.
The faculty love him. They cancelled the opening convocation "until Greenway is reinstated" (close if not an exact quote from an unofficial notice of the convocation's cancellation). The faculty apparently gave an 80% vote of full confidence to Greenway, with 84% voting for his immediate reinstatement. 93% voted for the full board "to resolve this crisis." This seems different from what the Executive Committee is convening the board for, namely, "to act on the employment of our president."
Who knows? Maybe we'll know at some point. The temptation is of course to make this into some kind of mythical struggle between good and evil, "Asbury at the Crossroads." I suppose it's understandable that many Asbury students are quite distressed over this. It seems that Greenway is very popular among them.
I don't know him hardly at all myself but he is very Wesleyan Church friendly and very much liked by the Wesleyan Seminary Foundation and our Department of Education and the Ministry. Greenway himself was scheduled to come speak to our campus here at IWU this Fall. That is massively impressive. As far as I know, no Asbury president has ever done that.
Certainly Maxie Dunham never came here--probably never even thought of coming here. My impression--and I may be wrong about this--is that if anything Wesleyans were largely overlooked during his tenure. Now consider that more students come from IWU to Asbury than any other single undergraduate institution! David McKenna, the president previous to Dunham, was actually a Free Methodist. But did he ever come to one of the campuses of a Wesleyan college? Maybe he did and I just don't know about it.
So for what it's worth, I hope Greenway is fully reinstated. I say this realizing that this might be the wrong position to have if I knew the full story. But for what it's worth, I like the guy.
If some of the reviews of Greenway's performance as President were bad, why were they bad? It's hard to believe that this is a struggle between a conservative President and a more broadly looking Executive Board. The Board itself is pretty conservative.
So I throw my hands up at guessing and wait for news of what will happen. But it may just be that after we know what happens, we will still not know what happens.
Like the book of Hebrews... God knows what the real story is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Over the years I've learned that I seldom get the whole story in any divorce... until much later, so it is wise (as you did) to only make semi-final judgments. That being said, there is a growing activism among boards… maybe it is due to Enron, and the Sarbanes-Oxley act… but church boards (including denominational General Boards & college Trustee boards) are feeling their oats and taking a stronger hand in operations… Presidents and General Superintendents may find themselves a notch down in the “chain of command” in the future as boards and board chairs adopt a heavy handed approach to leading… that could leave Presidents and GSs as “Executive Secretaries” for the boards… if this conflict is about that issue then I’m biased toward the Greenway—I think institutions should be commanded by someone who lives in town, not periodic visitors. (But, again, like you say, we don't know the whole story.)
I haven't heard about anything about this and was wondering where you read/heard about this?
I met Greenway and he made a lot of effort to be Wesleyan friendly (along with FM and Nazarene).
Anyway, this saddens me greatly.
I agree with Keith this far: we really don't know the whole story. That being said, I find your "semi judgments" more damaging than helpful. Public speculation about who's right and who's wrong seems more fitting for tabloid television than for those of us who long to see reconciliation among all of God's people.
To that end, I also wonder about the purpose of lamenting the absence of Maxie Dunnam on IWU's campus as well.??? Might his absence have been due to some (very legitimate) reason?
Ken, I know that blogs are great ways for regular people to enter the type of mass media conjecture that all too often passes for journalism; ergo, this story might be too much temptation for us to resist. But I ask you: Is this discussion redemptive or disparaging?
Finally, don’t think I’m just a wet blanket waiting to happen. (I am usually a fun-loving fellow! Ask James Petticrew.) I am, however, a “2 timer” at ATS and I know, personally, both Maxie and Jeff as well as many of the ATS board members. These are all good people and I think they deserve better.
Now…am I right or just hypersensitive?
Nate, I based my entry on information that Rev. Dr. Lee Strawhun, Asbury Director of Alumni Relations, passed on. He himself says he is quoting information received from Joan Gore Kupa, Board Secretary, and Bill Arnold, Provost. I am an alumnus as you, and thus we have a strong claim to such information, as current students do. We use this kind of information to decide whether we are going to contribute to the annual fund drives, which might be considered referenda on the performance of individuals like the President and the Board. Someone might tell us we don't have a right to this information. And we can hang up the phone when they call next year.
Joy, I tried to stay pretty close to the information I found in these documents. I have of course heard several rumors beyond them that I did not mention, except for one, that I mentioned with a disclaimer. I tried to make it clear that I do not know what is really going on there or who is really in the right (if we can single out one party).
My comments on Dunham are the continuation of a discussion I began in the Spring called "Whatever became of Asbury?" I did not make a connection between them and the current crisis. They were meant to show support for Greenway in general as President of the seminary by highlighting an area where he is doing a better job than Dunham did for whatever reason. Dunham may have really good reasons for not reaching out intentionally to constituencies such as ours. I understand him to be a towering figure who is deeply loved in Methodist circles. But he is almost a complete unknown in Wesleyan circles.
In my blog series last Spring I drew attention to the fact that interest in Asbury seemed to be on the wane at least at the institution where I teach, Indiana Wesleyan University. Jeff Greenway took this very seriously, was in contact with me personally, and is currently scheduled to come speak on our campus. At least last year our university was the single largest feeder school of Asbury. Not I, but some others in Wesleyan circles have been concerned that Asbury was leaving its historic connection with groups like mine. Greenway has been deeply encouraging to this part of Asbury's base.
So regardless of Dunham's general virtues, this is business. Good intentions aren't how you evaluate performance in business, and students don't go to a seminary just because the seminary would like them to. Asbury has been missing out on a market share from the largest private institution in Indiana (us) with a measley 30 some percent of our ministerial students going on to seminary--and we're still the largest single contributor to Asbury. In business that's a problem, despite how nice Dunham might be. I have no doubt but that he is ten times the person I am. Maybe he would be addressing this concern if he were President right now.
Again, this last part affirms Greenway. Dunham is no longer President so how could it hurt him or the board, right?
Sorry for the sex change, Joe, I misread your name as Joy. I trust you retain your manhood intact...
Schenck--I didn't know you hade changed your profession to a... medical line of activity.
I was curious if you could (and would) recommend a book on Wesley's (I guess this would be John) views regarding communion. I didn't grow up with the Wesleyan denomination engrained in me, and he came to mind today as I had some inspiration to study the subject in a little more depth.
Steph, I am a pitiful Wesley-an. But Coach put me on to one of Wesley's sermons, "The Duty of Constant Communion."
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/101.htm
Drury also has modern paraphrase of the sermon on his site:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/jwcomm.htm
Just another sidelight to the Board-Greenway conflict from an old guy. This experience is good preparation for the ministry for seminary students. If any imagined (and I cannot doubt but some might) that the church (even holiness churches) are not places where there is conflict and power struggles that are (for a time) unresolved this experience will release them from this error of thinking.
People in real churches are frequently in conflict and sometimes in great and painful conflict. Sometimes a pastor and some of her board are sure God wants the church to relocate or build a new building while others in that church are just as sure that God wants them to “continue our witness right here and bloom where we're planted.” Such differences can escalate into mighty rows where people walk out of board meetings, withhold their offerings and pastors resign and move on. The other side is often considered “carnal” or “guided by the Devil.” They are often neither--they are just expressing what they believe to be God’s will for the church.
Even when these folk seem very human, even nasty, they are not automatically evil but just seeking God’s will. A board and a leader in conflict is commonplace in the church so seminarians will do well to observe listen, and learn through this conflict—it may be more applicable to their future than some of the required classes.
What we always hope for (but do not always get) is a godly resolution of conflict. That is, the parties find some solution that enables the church to go forward... parhaps capitulation of one “side” or compromise of both sides, or sometimes even two congregations divide serving two futures. But we always hope that the men and women can shake hands, pray together and love each other even if they go separate ways.
Learning how to bring this kind of a solution will equip seminarians for a similar conflict most will face in their own future so this may be the ultimate “teachable moment” for Asbury students.
I am confident that the Asbury crowd will be this sort of example and if they are not I’ll be disappointed… but even if not all will learn from it. Perhaps there should be extra credit for going through this semester at Asbury! ;-)
Having trouble posting on "non-beta blogs." Everyone needs to switch. Or else I'm switching back.
Keith,
Severeal of my colleagues have run into the "carnal nature" of the Church, including myself (and I'm not even on staff anywhere). Your words would be well put this year in Church Leadership to the likes of those that are going to give the Church a shot in the coming months.
I recently met with Dave Smith when on campus and lamented with him over some frustrations with boards, churches, and the like. His response went something like this: "It's hard if you left school or any church and assumed that you would find the best of people in the pews. However, the very nature of the church is to redeem sinners...and so sinners sit in those pews. We should not be surprised with conflicts arise within such an entity--it often times brings out the worst and the best simultaneously." THAT IS A HUGE PARAPHRASE...but how true it is, both in churches, and perhaps in this situation at Asbury.
THE FOLLOWING EMAIL FROM AN ASBURY COLLEGE PROFESSOR NOW BOUNCING EVERYWHERE ELECTRONCALLY MIGHT BE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THIS POST
One person’s research…The Truth on the attempt to force President Greenway’s resignation
by Peter A. Kerr (Alum 2006 and Prof at Asbury College) September 12, 2006
The following has been gathered from multiple sources, and is the truth as best as I can ascertain it. If you have first-hand data that is contrary to the below, please let me know and I will gladly amend it. I will not share my sources, and the below narrative should be attributed entirely to me (I have journalistic experience, have checked my sources, and I stand behind it).
President Jeff Greenway was given his yearly evaluation from the executive committee (14 members) on the morning of Thursday August 31st. Instead of the standard review covering the 7 goals they had agreed upon and which Jeff had made true progress accomplishing, the committee did a “360” degree review, which is irregular as this type of review is supposed to wait until a President has completed his third year (this is Jeff’s 2nd year as President). Furthermore, the 6 member task force behind the review hired an “outside consultant” that had a clear conflict of interest, as sources say he was the one who joined with members of the executive committee to push for a different candidate instead of Greenway two years ago.
Without warning, the executive committee turned the yearly review into an attempt to force resignation. They gave Jeff a 35-40 page report and asked him to “take an hour” to look it through. Jeff walked out to do so and discovered through one of the committee members that they were actually pushing for his dismissal. Jeff was caught off guard, and after starting to read the document realized how serious it was and decided his family should know what was happening, as they would all be greatly affected. Jeff called a family meeting, and when the executive committee chair called to ask for Jeff to return to the meeting, Jeff said he was not able to do so because he needed more time to process the document, prayerfully consider its contents, and minister to his own family. Jeff furthermore expressed his desire that if it were a choice between being fired and resigning, he would prefer to resign as it would do less damage to the institution. When he received another call a little later he continued to refuse to go to the meeting that was clearly engineered to force his resignation based on faulty and biased data. The executive committee wanted to get rid of the president, but since it did not have the power to fire the President (which requires a full board), the committee used Jeff’s delay for its purposes by claiming his action was “insubordination” and proceeded to vote to offer him a severance package for his immediate resignation. Furthermore, they placed Jeff on “indefinite leave of absence” status, telling him he had until Friday September 8th at noon to accept the severance package and resign; otherwise no severance would be guaranteed. The legalities of this order are questionable at best, but Jeff wanted to show submission as far as possible and thus is abiding by the leave status.
No one has suggested this issue is about character, as Jeff is recognized by all as a man of high integrity. The lengthy performance report includes some points for growth, but also includes some rather harsh comments about Jeff’s leadership style and some very inaccurate data aimed to put the President in a poor light. Among other allegations, it claims the President has “polarized” the seminary into half people who really like him and half who really do not. The committee presented this reasoning to faculty on September 1st. The faculty decided to get some real data on the issue and therefore held a plenary faculty meeting on September 5th. The faculty gave the President a resounding vote of confidence, with 84% of faculty voting for the President to be immediately returned to his duties. Furthermore, the faculty passed resolutions calling for an emergency session of the full board and for suspending commencement. One final resolution that did not pass (the vote split 50%-50%) was a proposal to ask for the immediate removal of the chairman of the executive committee.
The executive committee has taken no action that indicates it values the faculty’s desires in this matter. Students began signing a “Polite Petition in Support of Greenway” on September 7th. The President is clearly concerned first about ATS, and thus he has decided to in no way fight for his own position.
The vast majority of administration and staff that I have asked have also suggested they support the president’s leadership. Some sources suggest that all the deans and all but one vice president will resign if the President is unfairly dismissed. Most people are confused by the executive committee’s will to force the President to resign, as he has led a banner year in contributions and is generally well regarded. The outpouring of sentiment from faculty/staff/students and alumni also suggest real support, and should easily counter any suggestion of “polarization.” The only “polarization” seems to be between the executive committee and the will of the people who live and work with the President at the seminary. Assuming the executive committee has the best for the seminary in mind, it should acknowledge the new data that the seminary is not “polarized,” and should work with the President to resolve differences. Just like a church board, their first act out of concern for the institution should be to reconcile differences and not to simply dismiss the one God has called into leadership.
The future is still in question, as the executive committee is being silent and not even communicating with the President except through attorneys. At a student prayer vigil outside his home on September 8th, the President read excerpts of a reconciliatory letter that he wrote to the entire board Friday apologizing for his refusal to return to the initial meeting, stressing his desire to do what least harms the institution, and asking for outside arbitration with the idea that instead of dismissing him out-of-hand there should be some way that all can learn and go forward from this incident. The President steadily refused to instigate (either approving or rejecting) any kind of public response, but did ask the students to continue learning and going to classes.
This is certainly a dispute about the leadership and vision for ATS. As such it involves all of us. While prayer is the first step, we are also called to be the hands and feet of the body of Christ, and I feel in this instance that means standing up for a godly man who has poured his life into our institution first as a board member and for the last two years as our president. The seminary will not crumble if President Greenway leaves, but we will have dismissed a good man and missed out on godly leadership and a true vision for our seminary and Christ’s Church. Please join me in expressing support for him.
OTHER INFORMATION/SPECULATION FROM MY LIMITED POSITION:
1) ACCREDITATION: Some suggest that if President Greenway is dismissed, the school’s accreditation may be jeopardized. This largely seems to depend upon the legality of the dismissal, and the amount of the school’s brainpower that exits with him in protest. In the past accreditation was lost due to the board not acting on the by-laws. At this time, accreditation does not seem to be in danger, though that could change rapidly.
2) MOTIVE: The executive committee’s motives must be questioned. Why are they following through with dismissing the President even if their data has been evidenced as faulty and President Greenway’s leadership has been exonerated? Some suggest that members of the executive committee always wanted a friend and former vice president of ATS to be the seminary’s President instead of Greenway. President Greenway reorganized and that vice president’s position was removed last year. Thus the current move may not be about poor leadership as much as it is about favoritism. To give the committee credit, they probably feel their friend would do a better job, and thus their actions are ostensibly for the good of the seminary. However, if we take God’s will as confirmed through His community seriously, then we cannot dismiss a man called into leadership without sufficient cause. I feel President Greenway’s performance does not merit dismissal, but to the contrary it merits approval, gratitude and honor.
3) CHANGE: Using a systems approach, the current dispute seems to highlight flaws in the current government system. First, it seems a more clear wall needs to be erected between the board’s responsibilities of oversight and the president/administration’s responsibility to manage seminary affairs. At present there is little to limit the board’s power to excessively influence seminary affairs, despite the by-laws clearly defining roles. The board should be reorganized to cease reflecting the vice president structure and instead focus on areas of expertise (such as governance, finance, personnel, etc. in general terms). Second, board members should have term limits, allowing new ideas and preventing power from coalescing to a small minority. Third, this situation has highlighted an inflexibility in the system. While the vast majority of board members are properly revered for their dedication and support of Asbury Theological Seminary (and we have many outstanding board members!), there seems to be no way for the faculty/staff/students/alumni to have real input. At least some level of official power should be granted the people at the institution should they unify in opposition to the board’s will. Some sort of recourse must be offered to seminary administration, faculty, students, and alumni when their desires differ from the board’s. This structural flaw MUST be addressed no matter what the outcome of the current situation.
CALL TO ACTION: I have taken the liberty to research this issue unasked, as I believe President Greenway is a godly man being put into a difficult position, and it seems that if we really believe God called him to be our President (as we all confirmed two years ago) then we should not let him go without the whole community again agreeing it is God’s will. No group of people, however godly, have a monopoly on the voice of God, but we all must submit to each other to discern the Lord’s will in this and every issue. Please join me in signing the Petition to Support Greenway and in prayer for ATS.
Yeah I saw this this morning too. I hesitated to post it because I don't know this guy and really have tried to stick somewhat closely to what I know or at least think I know. I sent this to Drury and as usual his response was on target: "the story always gets out… when a board suppresses and tries to control information it always gets out anyway—and (as in this case) it gets out biased against the secretive power-hoarders…."
There are those of us who are non-Asburians who pray for a quick and salubrious, rectification of this matter. ATS is an outstanding school for pastors, teachers, and laypeople and it is to our denomination's loss if events on that campus are disrupted, even for a short time. May the Holy Spirit guide everyone through ths time of turmoil.
As a follow up on Peter's spin on events, this is apparently a response from a member of the Board to whom an alumnus named Matt had forwarded the document:
"Matt, thanks for checking with me on this. My reaction: WOW! Frankly, there are so many errors and wrong assumptions in this statement that I'm not sure where to begin. I'll mention only a few. Several others that I would like to comment on, it would just be inappropriate at this time to do so, as I'm sure you can understand.
Underlying the document is a naive subjectivity that fails to appreciate or grasp that there are always two sides to every disagreement, and that very good people are on both sides of this; people who have the greatest of integrity and to assign less than noble motives as this author so carelessly does is not helpful.
A couple of inaccuracies.
The consultant is a very, very highly regarded professional. He knows the former vice president, as he knows Pres. Greenway and several hundred other folks, but does not have any kind of relationship that could legitimately be construed by objective people as a conflict of interes.
There was not "an attempt to force resignation." There was an attempt to engage an evaluation process as per our by laws.
The issue of motive around "friends of the former vice president" is simply wrong.
As to governance issues, the Board of Trustees has the sacred task of giving trusteeship to the Seminary, and the President is responsible to the Board.
I would love to be able to say more, but that would not be appropriate. I simply state again that this portrayal of events is very misleading in its overall tone and in many of the details."
You should read the latest post by Peter Kerr, posted on the Alumni Coffee House 09/15/06. It contains an updated version of the events surrounding the impending dismissal of President Greenway from Asbury Theological Seminary. I am a faculty member and can tell you that his sources are primary and reliable. The charges of "insubordination" against the president are being used to silence faculty opposition as well, but we the faculty (84%) made a strong statement of support for President Greenway and expressed our disapproval of the behind-the-scene power politics that was going on. This is a sad day for Asbury and what Asbury stands for.
Below is the updated version of Peter Kerr's original report, which was posted tonight on the Alumni Coffee House, 09/15/06. As a faculty member, I prefer to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but his report comes from original sources and is fully reliable.
Details on the administrative impasse at
Asbury Theological Seminary
by Peter A. Kerr MA, MDIV (ATS Alum 2006), Professor of Communications at Asbury College
September 15, 2006: version 1.1
The following has been gathered from multiple sources including faculty, administration, staff, board members and others. It is the truth as best as I can ascertain it. Most of the data is from first-hand witnesses and original sources (board policies and by-laws, faculty meeting minutes, etc.). I have updated it taking into account some information that has been sent me since my first posting. All of the new information suggests version 1.0 was very accurate as claimed, but I wanted to make a more complete statement with proper references, as well as amend the minor details with the new information. If you have first-hand data that is contrary to any of the below, please write me at: peter_kerr@asburyseminary.edu. I will not share my sources, and the below narrative should be attributed entirely to me. I was not encouraged by anyone but I initiated this on my own, having experience in journalism and in crisis consultation. My only agenda is that the truth be told and acted upon.
Asbury Theological Seminary President Dr. Jeffrey E. Greenway was given his yearly evaluation from a task force comprised of members from the executive committee on the morning of Thursday August 31st. For the second year in a row the executive committee chose to do a “formal” evaluation, bringing in an outside consultant and polling subordinates, instead of the standard yearly “informal” review. This is highly irregular, with one source even claiming that in the 22 years prior to Greenway there was only a single formal presidential review at ATS. Furthermore, according to ATS bylaws article VII section B, “The President shall be evaluated annually by the Executive Committee” but it goes on to say “The President shall be formally evaluated triennially by the full Board.” Thus the incorrect type of review (formal) was conducted, and that type of review should only be conducted by the full board. Notes from the Board of Trustees meeting do not indicate their approval was given for a formal review. Furthermore, the task force that conducted the formal review hired an “outside consultant” that had a serious conflict of interest, being a friend of a runner-up rival for Greenway’s position two years ago.
At this review meeting, Greenway was prepared to discuss his progress on seven objectives agreed upon in the previous year’s review, as is the proper topic according to Board Policy No. 3.4. However, that discussion did not take place as in a pre-meeting some members of the task force questioned the degree to which these objectives had been accomplished and another member demonstrated conclusively that the objectives had been substantially and satisfactorily accomplished. Thus instead of the meeting focusing on the agreed objectives and the president’s performance, the topic turned to an anecdotal survey from the “outside” consultant. The survey was unrelated to the objectives enumerated by the executive committee in its 2005 evaluation. After having been informed that the survey results raised serious questions about whether his presidency could continue, Greenway was handed the 35-40 page survey and asked to “take an hour” to look it through. Greenway walked out to do so and learned from one of the committee members that the committee was actually posturing to press for his dismissal based on a poor performance evaluation. Greenway was caught off guard, and after starting to read the document realized how serious it was and decided his family should know what was happening, as they would all be greatly affected (he has three children at Asbury College). Greenway also had doubts about the legality of the task force’s actions. Greenway called a family meeting, and when the executive committee chair called to ask for the President to return to the meeting, Greenway said he was not able to do so because he needed more time to process the document, prayerfully consider its contents, and minister to his own family. Furthermore, Greenway expressed his desire that if it were a choice between being fired and resigning, he would prefer to resign as it would do less damage to the institution.
When he received another call later that day, Greenway continued to resist going to the meeting, believing that it was engineered to force his resignation based on faulty and biased data. Thus his reluctance to return to a questionable meeting was used instead of the performance report to press for his resignation, with the task force claiming his actions constituted “insubordination.” Such a claim is contrary to the bylaws and policies of ATS. Board Policy No. 3.1 states that only the decisions of the Board acting as a body (not a committee) are binding on the President, so that neither the board Chairman nor the executive committee had the power to order Greenway back to a meeting, and they had no official power to place him on “indefinite leave” for alleged insubordination. Indeed, “the Chairperson has no authority to supervise or direct the President” (Policy Type: Governance Process, No. 2.5). Multiple sources claim the executive committee, and especially its chairman, have repeatedly overstepped the bylaw boundaries designed to separate the board’s oversight function from the President’s managerial tasks. This micromanagement has taken the form of bypassing the president and directly tasking administrative members as well as attempting to perform evaluations of administrative staff, contrary to numerous bylaws (Policy Type: Governance Process, No. 2.7). Multiple sources also suggest on the afternoon of August 31st members of the task force were already discussing an interim and longer term president.
Sources who have read Greenway’s performance evaluation say the lengthy report includes some points for growth, but also includes some rather harsh comments about Greenway’s leadership style and some inaccurate data aimed to put the President in a poor light. Some of the data was cited by the executive committee chairman in his meeting with the faculty on September 1st. Among other allegations, the report claims the President “polarized” the seminary community into half people who dislike him and half people who support him. The faculty were “distressed and bewildered” after the meeting with the board, and suspecting flawed data, they held a plenary faculty meeting on September 5th. According to the minutes of the “plenary faculty of Asbury Theological Seminary” dated September 5th, the faculty voted on five resolutions. First, they affirmed “full confidence in the Presidency of Dr. Jeffery Greenway” by an 85% majority. Second, 84% of faculty called for the executive committee to immediately “restore Dr. Greenway to his full presidential responsibilities.” More than 90% requested an emergency meeting of the full board to resolve the crisis, and a majority resolved to postpone convocation “until Dr. Greenway is reinstated to his presidential office.” Only one resolution did not pass, gaining a 50-50 vote, and that requested the removal of the executive committee chair due to 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.” These votes of faculty in plenary session indicate that the only “polarization” is not with regards to the President, but is with regards to the Chairman of the Board. The executive committee has not taken any action that indicates it values or respects this input from the faculty, despite the seminary’s expressed commitment to shared governance between the faculty and the Board.
Members of the executive committee, having lost their case for dismissing Greenway on the basis of a poor performance evaluation, and having the “polarization” charge undercut by the faculty vote, proceeded to press their inaccurate charge of “insubordination.” As explained above, Greenway cannot be considered “insubordinate” because he was not subordinate to either a subcommittee that had not been empowered to act on behalf of the whole Board nor to an irregular process of evaluation. The charge of “insubordination” is made even more questionable because Greenway stood ready all day September 5th waiting to be called in by the executive committee. Far from inviting Greenway in for discussion, the executive committee instead realized it did not have the authority to fire a President and so voted to offer Greenway a severance package for his immediate resignation. Furthermore, they placed Greenway on “indefinite leave of absence” status, telling him he had until Friday September 8th at noon to accept the severance package and resign; otherwise no severance would be guaranteed.
Students on campus have only had a vague one-sided report driven by the task force executive committee, as Greenway for the sake of peace decided to abide by the executive committee chairman’s “indefinite leave” order. The President has taken the stance that it is not his job to justify his position with the seminary community, and has fastidiously refused in any way to instigate or encourage action on his behalf. Some students started to hear information on the subject and began signing a “Polite Petition in Support of Greenway” on September 7th.
Everyone agrees the issue is not about character, as President Greenway is regarded by all as a man of high integrity and upright moral standing. The vast majority of faculty and administration support President Greenway’s leadership, with some sources suggesting that all the deans and all but one vice president will resign if Greenway is unfairly dismissed. Most people are confused by the task force’s will to force the President to resign, as he has led a good year in contributions and is generally well-regarded. In fact, the September 5th plenary faculty meeting notes express “deep appreciation and full confidence” in his presidency, citing his “genuine concern for spiritual and communal health”, “capacity to lead,” “life centered in Christ,” “authentic listening and consensus building,” “integrity and grace,” “persistent call to academic strength,” “joyful involvement,” and ability to “manage resources that enable the financial integrity of the Seminary.” The outpouring of sentiment from faculty, staff, students and alumni also suggest real support.
At a student prayer vigil outside Greenway’s home on Friday September 8th, the President read excerpts of a reconciliatory letter that he wrote to the board apologizing for his refusal to return to the initial meeting of the task force and for his part in the communication breakdown, stressing his desire to do what least harms the institution, and asking for outside arbitration and reconciliation. Greenway also requested the offer of resignation with severance to be extended to Monday September 11 at 5 p.m. With that date come and gone, the future is still in question, as the executive committee is being silent and not even communicating with the President except through their attorney to the President’s attorney (contrary to their Friday statement saying they were in communication trying to resolve the issue). The President steadily refuses to instigate (either approving or rejecting) any kind of public response, but did ask the students to continue learning and going to classes. If Greenway does not resign, the full board will meet in Atlanta on October 17th to decide his fate.
My personal brief evaluation and call to action:
This is a dispute about the leadership and vision for ATS, and as such it involves all of us. I believe the facts suggest back-room pre-meditated politics in the executive committee, and a board governance system that isn’t following the bylaws thus restricting the ability of any ATS President from doing his/her job. A clear wall must be erected between the board’s responsibilities of oversight and the president/administration’s responsibility to manage seminary affairs, possibly by reorganizing the board to cease reflecting the vice presidential structure and instead focus on areas of expertise (such as governance, finance, personnel, etc. in general terms). While we have many outstanding board members, there should be term limits on their service to foster new ideas and prevent power from coalescing to a small minority. The seminary will not crumble if President Greenway leaves, but it will have dismissed a good man without cause and missed out on godly leadership and a true vision for our seminary and more importantly, Christ’s Church. Charges of insubordination must be dropped, Greenway should be reinstated, and the executive committee personnel should be reorganized so as to foster a friendly, cooperative working relationship. Please join me in doing all you can to write board members, bishops, the ATS administration and anyone else that can help exonerate Greenway, prevent his forced resignation or employment termination, and restore him to his proper Presidential duties. Please also pray for God to reverse and even redeem this situation. Pray especially for the Board, as it will be tasked to take a hard look at its own members and deal with an increasingly difficult issue. “but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another…” (1 John 1:7a, NAS).
Given the repercussions of this crisis continuing, the charges of insubordination for not returning to the review seem so small that if the Exec. Board is not in real dialog with Greenway or convening the broader board then I can't think of any good explanation for their failure to do anything. Greenway has clearly not been so bad a president that he needs to be removed immediately. And if the Exec. Board was simply pursuing a logical and seminary beneficial course, then presumably they would call an emergency session of the broader board so that the seminary can have some resolution to the crisis--a crisis that has more negative implications for the seminary with each day that passes. So if they don't do one of these very, very soon--either reverse their suspension of Greenway or call an emergency meeting of the broader board, I can't see how we can continue to imagine scenarios in which their leadership is positive and truly beneficial to the community. I continue to wait for an explanation on their part that makes sense.
Just a side note for interest. If Robert's Rules of Order New Revised is the official standard of goverance of the ATS Board of Trustees, it normally requires a 2/3 vote of the full board to terminate an officer of the corporation. However, it would be interesting to study the Consitution and Bylaws of the corporation (ATS) to see if they specify a different percentage for the termination of an officer, other than what is specified in Robert's Rules.
Quite right, the Executive Board does not have the authority to fire the President apart from convening the broader board.
All I have to say about Jeff Greenway is What goes aroud, comes around.......former United Methodist
Post a Comment