The Right Questions for Asbury's Exec. Board

Drury has suggested that one way Greenway might come out of this mess is if he comes forward with a positive vision for the future. Part of the strategy here is to give the Executive Board a way to "save face" so that they don't feel like Greenway has to fry for their honor to be intact. At the same time, he admits that this is a long shot.

I think that the situation is way too far gone for this now. From all appearances, this sequence of events was in motion long before Greenway came to any meeting

So I personally see only one way for Greenway to survive, and that is if the broader board does not go along with the 4 on the executive committee who want Greenway out. Fortunate for Greenway, it would appear that the facts actually vindicate Greenway on each point, first, that the evaluation conducted was vastly skewed and inaccurate and, second, that the Exec. committee did not have the authority to place Greenway on a leave of absence.

No doubt the 4 on the executive committee think they are working for the good of the seminary. I bear them no ill will personally. But they do appear to be ignoring the will of the majority, including faculty, administration, students, and alumni. What the rest of the board thinks, I do not know. The board is of course the entity with the power and the group that must decide what will happen. I think we all have confidence that the broader board will do what it thinks is in the best interest of the seminary.

But I think, bottom line, someone has to lose. That's just the way it is. Either one or more on this executive committee will lose or Greenway will. One or the other will be sacrificed.

The following is a list of questions that I do not ask completely off the top of my head. In other words, they are questions I ask from an informed standpoint. I present them interspersed with the statements of the Vice Chairman:

Johnson: I know the confusion, sadness and frustration that many carry regarding all the speculations about the future of Dr. Greenway and the leadership of the board of trustees. I also know of your hunger for more information. Many emails and reports from campus reflect a tremendous amount of misinformation, as well as many differences of opinion on the same set of facts. Our board chairman, Dr. Jim Smith, asked me last week to help him by focusing on critical communications needs. You should know that all of the board officers have reviewed this and feel that it is time to give you as full a report as we are able.

Question: Could you identify the board officers who reviewed this statement?

Johnson: 4. What was different about the 2006 evaluation process?
Again, the full board had approved the use of a task force and understood it was the chairman’s role to conduct the process. Dr. Smith again invited Dr. Andringa to assist, this time wanting what has become popular in many organizations, the so-called "360 degree" evaluation. The same task force of officers, two past chairs, and the addition of the trusteeship committee chair, was called to Asbury for the review of documents and dialogue with Dr. Greenway on August 30-31, in time to make its report to the executive committee on September 5 at its regular fall meeting. To gather names for a pool from which a reasonable variety of people would be asked for their input, chairman Smith invited Dr. Greenway and members of the task force for names of administrators, faculty, staff, students and others. An equal number from Dr. Greenway and from task force members were selected to provide confidential written input. Not all suggested were included, of course, so no one would be sure who was involved. Dr. Smith provided twelve names to Dr. Andringa and asked him to conduct phone interviews with those people, some of whom were suggested by Dr. Greenway and some by task force members. We knew that there are hundreds of different software packages, forms, articles and philosophies about 360 evaluations, but the chairman chose a rather basic approach.

Questions: At what meeting did the Board of Trustees explicitly approve this process and appoint this task force? Why would we expect to get statistically significant and accurate information from folks chosen by the chair and the president? Why were random sampling methods not used? Even the basic qualitative methods taught in ATS’s DMin program were not followed in this evaluation of our President. Why did the chair get to name the 12 persons actually interviewed? How was reliability ensured and manipulation of data avoided? It is surprising that the board chair employed a consultant who disregarded common survey procedures. It is even more disturbing given the consultant’s eminent reputation. Given the stakes and in the name of basic fairness, why was a more statistically valid, random sample not employed? Would it be appropriate now to correct this oversight?

Johnson: 6. What were the recommendations, goals and priorities on which Dr. Greenway was to be evaluated?
The three recommendations in the fall of 2005 asked Dr. Greenway to work with an executive coach to help him in his first presidency in academia; to work with a professional consultant in fund-raising, a major role of the president; and to provide a way for employees to express their concerns in a way that would not be threatening, with our suggestion of using an outside, web-based survey used by many Christian universities called Best Christian Workplaces.
The goals and priorities had to do with Dr. Greenway’s use of time in fund-raising; his leadership in building relationships with the board of trustees; encouragement to develop a leadership style that encourages others without being autocratic; encouragement to provide leadership in all matters relating to the recruitment and hiring of new faculty; leadership in strategic planning; lead the seminary in the emphasis on "head and heart going hand in hand"; support the leadership of the Chancellor in the Marketplace Leadership Initiative for laity; and encouragement to put a priority on his personal and family life.

Question: Since policy mandates that the agreed to objectives are the only basis for evaluation, were these objectives satisfactorily met?

Johnson: 7. What were people asked in the 360 portion of the evaluation?
There were five open-ended questions given to those selected to be in the 360: (1) How would you describe President Greenway’s leadership? (2) What specific advancements in the Seminary’s life (list of all areas) would attribute primarily to President Greenway’s leadership? (3) How would you describe President Greenway’s relationships with the following groups with which you are familiar (faculty, staff, students, trustees, alumni, donors, friends of the seminary)? (4) In what areas of presidential leadership would you hope that President Greenway could improve? (5) Additional comments?

Questions: Why are these particular questions the right ones? Why are they so unrelated to the seven objectives that were to the policy-mandated basis for evaluation? On 2 above, the more President Greenway succeeds in fostering a team environment, the more transparent will be his leadership. On 4, why no corresponding question regarding strengths? Already, half the questions seem of doubtful value.

Johnson: 8. What were the responses?
Naturally, we want to honor confidentiality and it would not be fair to Dr. Greenway nor serve the purpose of this open memo to go into details. But you can be sure that there were two very different views of Dr. Greenway’s leadership that emerged. With such open-ended questions for those in the process, and fairly subjective recommendations and priorities for this year addressed in Dr. Greenway’s self-evaluation, there was room for different conclusions. The task force reviewed a summary of trustee and non-trustee written feedback prepared by Dr. Smith, essentially a cut and paste from the responses. We also had a six-page written summary of Dr. Andringa’s phone interviews (which averaged 45 minutes each). What remained to be done was the anticipated lengthy conversation with Dr. Greenway about last year’s report, his self-evaluation, the 360 inputs, and his thoughts on priorities for the coming year.

Questions: A "cut and paste" summary seems a very haphazard way of dealing with something so significant. What if another person were charged to do the "cut and paste"? Might this not give a very different view of things? Further, if we are going to make career decisions of this significance, would we not want to be sure our statistically insignificant sample were accurate? The point here is remarkably important. We have a consultant conducting a survey that fails to meet standards for producing a trustworthy result that ATS requires of DMin students. Minimally, when the results came back from an anecdotal survey indicating concerns, it seems any reasonable person would say, "Hmmm, given the nature of these findings and the seriousness of the decisions to be made, we’d better be sure about this. Let’s do a more thorough survey." Further, once the faculty vote of support was in, would it not further suggest that the survey was indeed in error?

Johnson: 9. What did this year’s task force finally recommend?
The task force had Dr. Greenway’s self-evaluation and the summaries of the 360 evaluations. The critical piece of lengthy dialogue with Dr. Greenway did not happen, so the task force was not able to complete its work and develop recommendations or priorities for the year ahead. August 31 started the beginning of the total breakdown in communications between the president and trustees.

Questions: Was there a straw vote taken by the chair appointed task force on the evening of August 30 that indicated President Greenway’s presidency was in jeopardy? Your tone suggests that the goal of the meeting for Thursday morning was to set objectives for the next year. However, Dr. Smith’s opening words to President Greenway were very much contrary to this tone.

Johnson: 10. So what happened to break up this process?
Very briefly, because the two summaries of the external evaluation responses were 30+ pages, the task force agreed on the night of August 30 that it was only fair to Dr. Greenway to give him a chance to read them the next morning before the planned discussion. Soon after 8:00 AM Dr. Greenway joined the task force, heard our rationale for inviting him to return to his office for an hour or more to review what the task force received the night before, and then return for the dialogue. As he left the room, one member of the task force left with him, to the great surprise and concern of the rest of us. A few minutes later we asked that person to return and expressed our deep sense that he violated the process. Later he asked for our forgiveness, which we granted. Evidently this trustee signaled enough of the task force members’ concerns to Dr. Greenway that he opted to call his wife, later leave his office, and through two voice mails indicated that he intended to resign and would not meet with the task force or the chairman. You can imagine our shock. We spent from about 9:00 AM to 2:30 PM trying to figure out a way to gain conversation so our task could be completed. Dr. Greenway understandably was in a very emotional state (as he acknowledged in apologizing later for certain demands that we felt to be exorbitant). The conversation among task force members naturally turned to questions such as "What do we do if he does resign?" "How do we interpret his refusal to meet with us?" and "What happens when we can’t finish our task of completing the evaluation for the executive committee next week?" We reviewed our bylaws again, asked the trustee closest to him to try to persuade him to return, and sought other counsel by phone. It was their recommendation to call a special meeting of the executive committee and place Dr. Greenway on leave.

Questions and Comments:
Given your comments about the concerns of the chair appointed task force, why would the task force be shocked? Consider:

1. As you observe, this unnamed member of the chair appointed task force "signaled enough of the task force members’ concerns to [President] Greenway." If these concerns were communicated, President Greenway’s response should hardly be surprising. Further, why, for the sake of the process, would you not want President Greenway to know "the task force member’s concerns"?

2. Moreover, did you indicate that President Greenway should cancel his morning preaching in chapel (only a couple of hours away) and that he should cancel other presidential meetings he had planned?

3. Likewise, did Dr. Smith originally indicate that President Greenway should look over the ad hoc task force’s report for "a few minutes or so"? And, was not an hour finally granted when President Greenway indicated surprise at the content of the report as it was being outlined to him?

4. Is it true that the consultant indicated that, in his opinion, the Greenway Presidency had about a 2% chance of success?

5. Was there any reason for President Greenway to expect such a negative review? Would not any reasonable person think he would be given more than an hour or so to read and reflect on his response? Would not a reasonable process grant at least a day to allow the contents of the review to be digested and a response prepared?

6. Did President Greenway indicate that he simply wanted to resign? Or, did he indicate that if he were being given the choice between firing and resignation, he’d prefer resignation?

7. At any time during the process, did anyone indicate to President Greenway that his resignation was not being sought and that the intent of the meeting was to work on objectives and actions for President Greenway to undertake for the coming year? In other words, if the communication to President Greenway that he was expected to resign was in error, did anyone undertake to correct this error?

8. Given you notice of President Greenway’s understandably emotional state, would not the appropriate response to President Greenway’s reluctance to meet be a recognition of that understandable set of feelings and, then to offer a 24 hour period for him to review the documents?

9. According to Board of Trustee policy, only the BOT as a whole has authority to direct President Greenway. How, then, could the chair appointed task force initially place him on leave, instruct him not to preach, and to cancel other daily duties/meetings? In fact, how could the Exec Com do so itself? As President Greenway has recognized his own regrets in the letter noted below, will the chair appointed task force step up and own it’s own procedural mistakes and questionable leadership practices?

Johnson: 11. What happened after this task force meeting?
The chairman called a special conference call of the executive committee for September 1. All 14 trustees on the committee were on the call. As you can imagine, many trustees were in shock over this "insubordination" and Dr. Greenway’s representation to others that this was a flawed evaluation process. The executive committee decided to place Dr. Greenway on leave without presidential duties, but with continued full compensation and benefits, and anticipated a full discussion of the matter at their previously scheduled meeting on September 5.

Questions: It is helpful that the term "insubordination" is placed in square quotes, as the term cannot literally apply to the actions taken by President Greenway, as is clear from the board policies. Again, by what policy does this group have authority to place President Greenway on leave? And, if the present impasse is not based upon "insubordination," then what?

Johnson: 12. What happened next ?
Dr. Greenway did not want direct communication with the chairman or the executive committee. We worked with Dr. Andringa and others in checking out useful solutions. SACS and ATS were notified. Chairman Smith stayed on campus to meet with the leadership team, faculty, students and staff to explain why Dr. Greenway was placed on leave. Then we prayed a lot, as most on campus did.

Questions: If communication had broken down between the chair and President Greenway, why were not alternative communication channels sought? Especially, since this specific process was not approved by the BOT? Why was a mediating path not taken? This is especially disturbing since President Greenway himself urged third-party mediation.

Johnson: 13. What happened at the executive committee meeting on September 5?
All 14 members were there. Except for attending the chapel, led by Dr. Kalas, the committee spent the day discussing all aspects of the situation. Since Dr. Greenway continued his stance of not meeting with the executive committee, we had to assume his earlier statements about resigning were still in his mind. Some wanted a full board meeting called. We agreed that Dr. Greenway had sought information on what severance agreement might be acceptable, so approved a very generous multi-dimensional package should he make that decision by noon, Friday, September 8. We also passed a comprehensive resolution 12-2 continuing his leave, providing for interim leadership, etc., which was shared with the community. All of us knew we were in troubled waters, new to all of us.

Questions: Again, by what board policy does the Executive Committee have this authority? Did the EC attempt to contact President Greenway on September 5? Why was a severance package being put together at this point? And, is it true that resignation papers were being drafted by the consultant? Perhaps most significant is the lack of any mention of resolutions passed by the faculty. Given accreditation standards regarding shared governance and given ATS’s own expressed commitment to shared governance between the BOT and the faculty, why have these resolutions been summarily ignored? And, why have the faculty’s resolutions not alerted the chair appointed task force to its erroneous conclusions regarding President Greenway’s alleged polarization of the faculty?

Johnson: 14. What has happened since September 5?
On Friday, September 8, working through his attorney, Dr. Greenway asked for an extension of the deadline until 5:00 PM Monday, September 11. The chairman asked the seminary’s attorneys to engage in the typical process of starting with Dr. Greenway’s long list of requests and trying to move toward something acceptable to all. Monday night came and the chairman decided that so long as the attorneys were talking, it was best for everyone to let that process play out. We know that among the 4300 degree-granting colleges, universities and seminaries there are at least 700 new presidencies each year. Some presidents are terminated by the board, but a more usual departure under these circumstances is a voluntary resignation, sometimes due to "irreconcilable differences with the board." Here certain differences certainly exist. Many trustees found Dr. Greenway’s behavior insubordinate and wished to proceed with termination, regardless of what the performance review showed. There were lots of opinions on the board and surely we saw or heard of many opinions from the faculty, staff and students.

Questions: Since you note the president’s use of an attorney, why do you not note the rapidity with which the board chair sought legal advice? Why is there no mention of the letter President Greenway sent that expressed regret for any misstep on his part and requesting third party mediation? Would not any reasonable person think this was an appropriate course of action given the break down in communication? Why did the chair choose to respond to President Greenway’s personal letter requesting an extension and mediation by asking the Seminary’s attorneys to contact President Greenway? On what grounds would you argue for insubordination—by what ATS bylaws and board policies?

Johnson: 16. What about the rumor some of Maxie Dunnam’s friends want him back?
A lot of trustees still admire Maxie. But he left when he wanted to and we as a board made the decision to hire Dr. Greenway. We did retain Dr. Dunnam as Chancellor, especially to focus on continuing his relationship with major donors. He has done well. Much of this year’s very good development report was due to Dr. Dunnam, some bequests, as well as to Dr. Greenway’s hard work.

Question: We missed the answer to the question you posed. Was the possibility of Dr. Dunnam returning as an interim president discussed, either formally or informally, by some members of the chair appointed task force either before, after, or during the meeting with President Greenway on August 31?

Johnson: 17. What is Dr. Greenway’s status right now?
He remains on leave without presidential responsibilities for people, programs or budgets. Soon after the executive committee continued his leave, he was communicating that he would never resign, that he felt his call to Asbury was still unfulfilled, that some trustees should resign, etc. But at the very same time, his attorney was continuing discussions for more than seven days on what the board would agree in severance benefits should he resign voluntarily. We recognize that many leaders, concerned for the welfare of their families, might choose to pursue all their options at the same time under these circumstances.

Questions: On what basis does President Greenway remain on leave? As you note toward the end, any reasonable person would have continued exploring all options, especially given the process problems identified. By the way, we understand that President Greenway was given 21 days to consider a severance offer, but that this offer was withdrawn within 2 days of its being placed on the table (some 19 days early). Can you clarify this?

Johnson: 18. What are the next steps?
While these uncertain negotiations were going on, the chairman told us that the full board would need to meet prior to our mid-November meeting, whether Dr. Greenway resigned or not. Technically, the executive committee could act for the board on accepting the terms of a resignation. But only the full board can terminate a president. The bylaws also allow any seven trustees to call for a special meeting, which must be held between 10 – 45 days from the call. That was done and a meeting will be held prior to October 23. We don’t yet know what the specific agenda will be, but to terminate a president our bylaws require the chair to appoint a special committee of two trustees, one faculty member and one administrator to meet with Dr. Greenway and to make a report to the board. This process has not yet been initiated. We continue to pray that God will open all our eyes to a better solution. Yes, time is short and our chairman, who is the board’s "manager," has some difficult decisions.

Questions: Yes, only the full board can give the president direction. So, why are we where we are? Would not a better solution be to seek mediation in order to get all concerns on the table? Since President Greenway has encouraged third-party mediation, why has this option not been given serious consideration? We seem on a course that might well leave the underlying issues in the dark. Would we not all benefit from complete transparency and an attempt to get at those underlying issues?

Johnson: 22. What should concerned faculty, staff and students do?
I understand your deep concern and the human desire to "do something." But we are a Christ-centered educational community. We have clear biblical principles about rumors, gossip, judging others, gathering good information, believing the best in others, etc. I do urge those of you prepared to lead us back to biblical principles that stand out during stressful times to do so.Of course, we need your earnest prayers. God can and will redeem this story to His glory.

Comment: Surely this is true of the entire community. We, too, call upon God to shine his light into the darkness and that all may be redeemed to His glory. We, too, seek a return to biblical principles. It seems we are strongly in agreement here, even if we might have different senses of the activities that this might lead us to. May God grant wisdom to all involved.