Won’t Fool All of Us - Not This Time (First Hallmark)

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” - Abraham Lincoln

How many justifications have we seen for firing select Board members? I have discussed many already on this blog (in Part 1 and Part 2), and in summary,  none really sets the Fourteen apart from the remaining Sixteen. I’ve also mentioned the unbelievably small chance of firing a specific fourteen men and women out of thirty. Some criterion must have been used to pick one group out of the whole, though so far, that criterion eludes us.

I will rely on the Commission to tell us what happened.

I have quite a bit of help, actually. Commissioners wrote two reports discussing their findings, published quite a few words on the Ask a Commissioner blog, and most helpful of all, came to Erskine to answer questions the week following the Emergency Meeting of Synod. An anonymous contributor has provided me with a tape recording of this event; therefore, quotes provided in this document are verbatim transcripts of that meeting.

The Commissioners were shockingly candid in some respects, but perhaps more telling is what they did not elaborate on. I shall discuss both.

First, a Brief History

Recall that the idea to remove trustees is certainly not recent – the idea has been around since before a “shrink the board” mantra started. I quoted Rev. Tim Phillips a few weeks ago, who wrote on a forum last year:

Of course, most of the folks in the ARP are pretty much fed up by this time. Someone has suggested that the entire Board needs to be disbanded, a new composition devised, and new Board members appointed. I don't see that happening, but it is an interesting suggestion. Part of the problem is that there are folks on the Erskine Board who do not need to be on the Board, imho.

Please note: I do not say the Commissioners were prejudiced initially or even finally (this will be covered on this blog soon), but the idea that nobody thought about restructuring the Board is silly.

More to the point, Commissioners and their supporters cite the 1977 Synod statement on higher learning and its subsequent revisions as proof positive that Synod did not act hastily in March. This is true, though one might question whether, after waiting thirty years to get super-serious, they were right to speedily meet four months before the General Synod met. Of course, after waiting 392 months to fix Erskine, those four extra months were clearly too much to bear.

Moreover, the Commission report was not released weeks or months before the emergency meeting as is customary; ostensibly this was to protect people’s reputation (a refreshing attitude), but since we were going to find out everything at Synod anyway, why the wait? It is my opinion that offering enough time for lengthy consideration and deep prayer was the higher priority. As it was, the Emergency Synod voted just 24 hours after receiving the complete Report; after 11956 days of waiting to "fix” Erskine, one more day truly was like a thousand years.

What did the Commission actually do?

I am a creature of habit; when Christian men I respect speak I try to accept it. But we have been given a bitter pill in to swallow. Commissioners spoke extensively that Synod did not fire any trustees, or even dismiss them. Rather, disbanded the Board and appointed a totally new board. Moderator DeWitt said:

“[Synod] removed the thirty appointed members of the board and replaced them with thirty new names. Now this is a point of confusion and disagreement on the part of so many. Understand what had to be done was the thirty appointed trustees had to be removed and then thirty new names put in place, but obviously we want, need, and desire institutional stability, so sixteen of the ones removed were immediately put back on the interim board. … [reiterating the point,] Sixteen total of the thirty removed were immediately put back on the interim board.”

In other words, these men were not fired. They were all removed and a select group of sixteen were reappointed, along with fourteen new names.

Huh?

This is like firing an employee by “removing all employees and hiring all of them back except for you.”Queue the laughter. Such an action makes no sense in business, in politics, in legitimate dealings with anybody. Of course I understand the distinction Commissioners are trying to make: removing individual members for cause is far different than removing everybody and reappointing some. Far different – yes; morally more acceptable – no! Such careful language should be a clue – the first of many – that all is not right here. We are expected to distinguish between firing fourteen men and firing everybody but reappointing sixteen. Wow. Nuance and quibbling over definitions of “to fire” are but the first clues that something has gone terribly wrong.

The Plaintiffs argued that if Synod had the authority to reconstitute the Board, why bother describing due process removal at all? Are we to believe that Synod can, at a whim, remove anybody from the Board they choose through legal wrangling and appeals to “SC Non-profit law” but can only remove members for cause with difficulty? You might argue that Synod will only exercise their “get rid of everybody and reappoint whoever we want”  power when absolutely necessary, but of course a great many people think it wasn’t necessary now. Synod disagrees and thence a lawsuit. How much better it would be of Synod had not invented/discovered this ability and simply appointed new trustees each year as they always have!

I shall cover the other grisly repercussions of reconstitution without due process later.

How to Avoid Being Dismissed and Not Reappointed: The Three Hallmarks

The Commission Report defines a “good” board by three “hallmarks” and a couple of “essential qualifications.” I can only presume that if you possess these “hallmarks” and “essential qualifications” you stood a better chance of not being fired being dismissed and reappointed.

Today: The First Hallmark.

Thursday: The Second Hallmark.

Friday: The Third Hallmark, and amazing Conclusion.

Saturday: Will we have a new President?

The First Hallmark

“Size and make up [of the Board should be] appropriate to effectively safeguard the assets and accomplish the mission with which it has been entrusted.” – Commission Report to Synod

Ah! The “Size Issue.” In a nutshell, the Board was too large – 34 voting members and some 27 advisory members for a total of over 50 people. The Commission demanded the Board reduce their number immediately to 15 plus the moderator of the Synod (16 members total); the Board of Trustees balked at this and counter-offered to reduce their number over the next six years. Not fast enough, said the Commission, and removed half of them immediately.

Commissioner Wingate spoke at Erskine:

The point is that, the ARP Church owns and operates Erskine College and Seminary, and it said, the board needs to be downsized. The prior board agreed with that, except the prior board thought it should take six years, and the church thought it should happen sooner. So the church said, here are thirty people, you thirty go and change the bylaws.

Reducing the size of the Board is why the Board was restructured, claimed the Commission over and over again. This is why I call the previous issues “justifications” – they had nothing to do with the stated reason for firing the Board and were just “filler” to make Synod look good better.

Their plan? According to the Commissioners, the new members were charged with altering the bylaws immediately to shrink the Board. Essentially, they appointed members who would do what they demanded. One female student remarked in agreement, “When you remove dissenters from a Board, it is easier to move quicker, faster.” DeWitt replied immediately, “Yes, that’s right.” I kid you not. And he is right.

In this sense, then, the Fourteen were chosen for removal because they opposed the Commission’s will. The new Thirty presumably supported the small-Board-immediately idea. The Commissioners all were very clear in their question and answer time that the new Board was told to resize the board, and members were removed when the Board stood against them.

Paradoxically, Ken Wingate insists members were chosen by drawing names out of a hat: “I’d like to explain [how the Fourteen were chosen], but there was no cherry-picking.” And later, "I can appreciate, sir, how you deeply want to know how the 14 of the 30 were selected. … Why would we select you and not you. Or why would we select you and not you. It just had to be thirty, and those were the thirty names that the Synod elected. You're asking me to answer something that can't be answered because there's not a different answer than I've already given you.” (emphasis original)

And in a sense he is right – the only stated requirement during the Q-and-A was the new appointee must want to shrink the Board. He or she must be willing to obey Synod or, well, or they would be dismissed I suppose. But as we shall see, shrinking the Board was just the tip of the iceberg.

I believe Mr. Wingate was not completely truthful in his answer – there is no way he was. Randomly picking people to get rid of or reappoint as he suggests would not accomplish even this first goal, not to mention all the other goals we’ll cover in the next few days. The Board was restructured with precision accuracy and Mr. Wingate avoided the question. Put charitably, I suggest the Commission assembled a new board from their friends. “It just had to be thirty” – and with the right nominations and Synod’s seal of approval, thirty “good ol’ boys” were chosen. Each member alone was dispensable just as Wingate said, but in total, Commissioners picked those who would accomplish their goals. End result? Those in bed with the Commission kept their position.

But seriously, Size Size Size! Make no mistake about it: size is absolutely where the Commission wants us to focus our attention because it is the easiest action to justify. It’s clear, it’s obvious, and the current Board agreed with them. But removing anybody from the Board would shrink it – why not remove Synod supporting Trustees in compromise? This would never happen – Synod wants their supporters on the Board. Size is not the only concern here!

In fact, a small Board is not even the entire First Hallmark! Remember the “first hallmark” cites “size and make up” as being important. I hope nobody has forgotten this secondary cause, for I believe the Commission will never remind us.

Never once during the Erskine Q-and-A session did Commissioners mention disagreements among the Board members as a cause for restructuring. This is odd considering the preliminary Commission report which speaks at length of “irreconcilable and competing visions about the direction of the college and seminary among the members of the Erskine Board of Trustees.” The Board was too darn argumentative! Removing dissenters from a Board makes everything easier! “Yes, that’s right.”

Trustees were given a job – to effectively manage Erskine College. They have opinions on how to accomplish this goal. Maybe some disagree with Chuck Wilson, who recently cautioned to “Demand accountability [of Trustees] to the General Synod!” Accountable – yes. Subservient – well, maybe not. Trustees all have different opinions on how to manage Erskine. They were interviewed when appointed to the Board – why reject them now? Do some not align with Commissioners’ specific vision for Erskine?

For Synod to say “just kidding” and remove these Trustees because they did not agree, or more accurately, were perceived to not agree with Erskine’s Mission, is distasteful.

We have a lawsuit because of it.

We all disagree on whether each Trustee was smart or stupid; but we all know this: pretending the Board was restructured just to shrink is misleading, and pretending ideology was irrelevant is “silly.”

 

Tomorrow: The Second Hallmark!