The Second Hallmark

“The second hallmark of a strong and effective board is that it is independent from the administration. The Board is to establish policy and set guidelines for the mission of the institution, and then exercise the proper amount of oversight by asking the hard questions.” – The Commission Report

(Continuing from Introduction – Won’t Fool All of Us)

There is no doubt here: an independent Board is essential for proper oversight of Erskine College and Seminary. Commissioners want an “independent, competent, and engaged” board. So do I.

Ah! But independence is not the whole story. The Board must also be subservient to Synod. They demanded a change to the bylaws, removed trustees who opposed them, and ordered the remaining trustees to obey them. Is this independence? This sets a dangerous precedent; what will Synod demand next? Independence from the Administration is absolutely important, but independence (of a kind) from Synod is just as important. Trustees must balance the good of the College with the will of Synod – this disagreement was ignored and roadblocks thrown to the side. Is this independence? Or is Synod a demi-god with absolute power?

Synod has a role over the Board – they appoint Trustees! But in my opinion Synod does not have the authority to demand outright obedience. Please never forget that Trustees never once disobeyed Synod even before the reconstitution – whatever Synod demanded the Board accepted, albeit with modifications. Shrink us? OK – over six years. Statement of inerrancy from new professors? Fine by us. Emphasize integration of faith and learning? Sure thing, boss. Intimidate students? Oh right, the Board had nothing to do with that. In all these things the Board has followed Synod’s commands. Not perfectly, not quickly, and not to the extent that Chuck wants. But never disobedience. Whether I agree with Synod’s power is irrelevant – the Board agreed with Synod’s power and worked with them almost perfectly. The Board was not taking Erskine to a place it’s never been. No, we’ll leave that to Synod.

Of course how do we know the new Board will even listen to Synod? After all, Synod lacks the authority to force the Board to vote a certain way. A Female questioner asked at the Q-and-A session: "How do ya'll come about having assurance that this new interim board will pass the changes [to Board structure].” Wingate replied, “Because they are charged by the Synod; their direction when they were elected was to go do this. So, they were told: 'do this.'" And if they don’t? They’ll be dismissed and not reappointed again. I call this “blackmail” and consider it worthy and noble for a, well, nobody.

One adventurous female student asked, “We now have a new board that, for lack of a better term, is almost a puppet board. How can you assure us that the new president [the interim board will pick] will be picked for the greater good of the student body and not [just] for the good of the Church?” Her point is simple: if the Board is forced to obey Synod, can they act with any autonomy at all?

Wingate responded, “I would defy anyone to look at that list of individuals [on the new board] and say 'Here's a bunch of puppets.’ If you know those individuals they are anything but 'puppets.' They are strong-minded, experienced, committed individuals.”

Female: “But if you're telling them what to do...”

Wingate: “In one regard [only]. The only thing at all that was directed is that there would be a vote to downsize the board from 34 to 16 members.”

This is true – we only know of one public command to the Interim Board. But what of the commands we don’t know about? What of commands that might be sent tomorrow, a week from now, or next month? Once one command is sent – do this or you will be dismissed – future blackmail is all but certain.

They were puppets. Pawns. Do none of them have a problem with that?

And now we come to it – the prime example of Board malfeasance, the smoking gun that shows the Board in bed with the administration!

“The Commission finds that there have been a number of financial
irregularities and administrative failures which underscore the lack of oversight by the Board.”

Huh?

That’s it? That’s the only example you have of the Board sleeping with the administration? We found out in court that not a single current Trustee served when these alleged “irregularities” occurred! By this logic, we should fire Chancellor Merkel for the crimes of Hitler, Putin for the crimes of Stalin, or Dr. Ruble for fiscal mismanagement that occurred under Dr. Carson’s presidency at Erskine. Each case makes just as much sense as removing trustees that had nothing to do with what happened (or did not happen) in the past. Blaming the current Board – and removing a select few members for it – is crock.

That’s all, folks. This is their only example of Board subservience to the administration. They give no more examples – there are no more to give. Always the Board has stood over the administration to set rules and regulations. I’ll discuss later Synod’s disagreement with Board decisions, but the Board did act independently from Administration demands. And so this Second Hallmark is absolutely important – and absolutely already followed.

I have no fears about Board independence from the administration – but we should all fear the “blackmail” of Synod! What will they think of next?

 

Tomorrow: The Third and Final Hallmark (the most amazing one of all)