Thanks to an anonymous contributor, I present to you the resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees the day following the Commission’s presentation of recommendations (as seen on this blog earlier). This resolution was offered as a compromise proposal to accept the Commission’s Recommendations.
===========
February 19, 2010
In a spirit of humility and acknowledgment of our failings, and a desire to give the glory to God, and to move Erskine forward; we concur in principle with the recommendations of the Moderator's Commission and submit this response to be presented to Synod by March 2, 2010.
[Point 1] The Board recommends that the size of the Erskine Board be reduced over the next six years by Synod appointing three (rather than five) trustees per year beginning with the class that takes office July 1, 2010.
[Changes: Proposes a gradual six-year change rather than the unspecified time period (presumably immediately) in the original report. Final board size: 18, or 3 more than Commission recommended, plus several ex officio members.]
[Point 2] The Board agrees to move forward expeditiously to adopt effective policies regarding financial integrity, conflicts of interest, integration of faith and learning, board training, etc., which are aligned with and advance the objectives set forth by Erskine’s current mission statements and Synod’s Philosophy of Christian Education.
[Changes: None. Direct quote of Commission report.]
[Point 3 & 4] The Board has requested that the Chairman of the Board appoint a committee composed of three Board members and two members from the Moderator’s Commission to review and make recommendations to the Board for revisions to the Bylaws in alignment with and to advance the objectives set forth in Erskine’s current mission statements and Synod’s Philosophy of Christian Higher Education.
The Board fully recognizes Synod’s final authority to appoint trustees to the Erskine Board.
[Changes: Revision of bylaws ultimately up to the Board, not Synod. Chairman of Board, not Commission, will create committee with three Board members and two Commissioners (not the other way around) to recommend changes in bylaws. In effect, decision on point #3 postponed but Point #1 upheld and Point #4 slightly modified.]
[Point 5] The Board, through its Search Committee, is actively seeking a new President. The Board and the current President have agreed that prior to the appointment of a new President, they will not appoint any executive vice presidents nor grant tenure to faculty.
[Changes: None.]
The Board offers these recommendations in furtherance of its desire to move Erskine College and Seminary forward in a spirit of unity, seeking the peace, purity, and prosperity of the church and of Erskine College and Seminary, to the glory of God.
Adopted by the Board on February 19, 2010 after meeting with the Moderator’s Commission on February 18, 2010.
==============================
Let me get this straight. The Board of Trustees agreed without exception to two points of the Moderator’s Commission, subtly modified two points, and agreed to consider but not absolutely pass one final point that was the least important of them all (#3, which is about recommendations that are not binding).
The Board concurred with nearly all the recommendations of the Commission, despite the Commission’s haughty attitude, lack of authority, and forceful presentation. The Board presented their compromise “in a spirit of humility and in acknowledgement of our failings” and “offers these recommendations in furtherance of its desire to move Erskine College and Seminary forward in a spirit of unity, seeking the peace, purity, and prosperity of the church and of EC&S, to the glory of God.” Sounds pretty good to me.
It wasn’t enough; it wasn’t unconditional surrender. The Emergency Meeting of Synod met just a week and a half later, rejected this olive branch, and the rest is history.
Two last bits of irony.
First, deWitt assured us in his “Moderator’s Reflections” article that he did “whatever I had at my disposal to closing the gap and drawing our college and seminary and the church back together.” Yet he rejected a compromise made “in a spirit of humility and in acknowledgement of our failings” because of a few minor, inconsequential differences (18 Trustees vs. 15; nomination recommendations; Bylaw revision composition). In other words, he rocked the very foundation of the church damaged and/or destroyed EC-Synod ties by demanding unconditional surrender over trifles. Compare the tone of the Commission recommendations to this document; they are amazingly different. How distasteful.
[Update: This paragraph is contested in the comments section below; let me emphasize that the Resolution was read by a member of the Board, as we know from the Aquila Report article linked to last time]. Second, a delegate at Synod asked that the Board’s recommendations be read aloud to all of Synod. Moderator deWitt rejected that request, saying delegates could read it for themselves. Seriously? Yea, we know they could read it themselves. But seriously? He cared so little for this compromise proposal that he rejected – rejected – their entrance into the Synod minutes? The Commission’s recommendations were read twice per Synod regulations – yet they couldn’t take 5 minutes to read a few hundred words offered “in a spirit of humility?” deWitt did not care what the Board had to say “in a spirit of humility.” How distasteful.
Compare the Board of Trustees’ petition to Chuck Wilson’s rhetoric. You be the judge:
“The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” is a den of scoundrels and liars who have been caught in a public lie. These are the mutinous leaders who at the February Board meeting and at the March meeting of General Synod duplicitously whined: [here quoted parts of above recommendations].
WHAT DISSIMULATORS!
The above statement sent out by Chairman Mitchell is an outright attempt by “The Mutinous Erskine Board of Thieves” to stopping [sic] General Synod from electing this year’s slate of trustees [as we know, this is incorrect – in fact, the Board’s resolution stated the exact opposite]. The rebellious leadership of the Board recognizes that the election of the new slate of Trustees will dramatically change the balance of the Board [??? How? Synod has appointed the Trustees for years]. May God grant the failure of the machinations of mutinous and evil people! May God grant that the General Synod elects righteous men and women to the Board who hold mutiny and dissimulation in disdain! [Emphasis added]
Compare the tone. Compare the rhetoric. Compare the effort at compromise with the name-calling. I have no idea where the lies are. I have no idea where the machinations are. I have no idea where the dissimulation is. Call me ignorant. Call me naive. Call me a pawn of Satan. Call me “evil.” But from where I’m sitting, the Board did the right thing here; it was Synod and their supporters that were wrong.
Thank you, contributor; and thank you Board, you “evil people,” for humility and a desire for peace.
"Second, a delegate at Synod asked that the Board’s recommendations be read aloud to all of Synod. Moderator deWitt rejected that request, saying delegates could read it for themselves. Seriously? Yea, we know they could read it themselves. But seriously? He cared so little for this compromise proposal that he rejected – rejected – their entrance into the Synod minutes? The Commission’s recommendations were read twice per Synod regulations – yet they couldn’t take 5 minutes to read a few hundred words offered “in a spirit of humility?” deWitt did not care what the Board had to say “in a spirit of humility.” How distasteful."
ReplyDeleteUnless my memory fails me, The above response of the BoT was read in its entirety by Rev. Ray Cameron at the Called Meeting.
"Compare the tone. Compare the rhetoric. Compare the effort at compromise with the name-calling."
ReplyDeleteAgreed about the tone and rhetoric. Yet, you might note that Wilson's quote that you provide wasn't in response to the above BoT statement; but, rather to the more recent plan that's floating around and has not as of yet been adopted by the Board.
"You might note that Wilson's quote that you provide wasn't in response to the above BoT statement"
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, but not true; in the midst of talking about the new proposal, Wilson quoted THIS compromise and blasted it with the quote above.
"(18 Trustees vs. 15; nomination recommendations; Bylaw revision composition)."
ReplyDeleteTemperance, its only my sense of the matter and nothing more, but I believe that the Synod was more concerned with the 6 year time frame of implementing the downsizing rather than the final number of trustees. I wonder how the Synod would have responded to something more along the lines of a 2-4 year time frame. On the by-law revision committee difference. The Board's counteroffer would have put the Board members of that committee in the majority and thus in control. To what actual effect that would have had on the revisions recommended? Who knows. Maybe another Synod appointed committee distinct from both the Board and the Commission, yet able to receive input from them both, might have made better sense. Maybe not.
"Thank you for your comment, but not true; in the midst of talking about the new proposal, Wilson quoted THIS compromise and blasted it with the quote above."
ReplyDeleteHere's the link to his rant:
http://www.arptalk.org/2010/05/27/mutinous-erskine-board-of-thieves/
Context shouldn't be ignored. The context was the latest idea floated as it compares to the earlier statement that you've provided.
Yeah, more misinformation in this post by Tempest. I believe Joe Patrick read and commented at length on it also. So, nice try Tempest, but your spinning the same conspiracy theory to death.
ReplyDeleteAlso, note the difference in the Board's resolution and its action. In Feb they "agree" and admit to their guilt in principle. Then they say they will get busy implementing strategies to address their problems. Do they do that? No, they conspire to file lawsuits and to find a way to attempt to cut themselves free from the General Synod. I think we all see through the nicely worded resolution in Feb, the reality of what has taken place for decades and what is happening currently and are left to conclude: "Huh. Chuck was right all along." He may not be nice in what he says and I may not like how he says it. But dang if he doesn't tell it like it is. The current BOT and Faculty and Administration are pretty convincing that Chuck has been right all along. Mean, angry, polarizing and bombastic.....but accurate.
Last commenter: seriously? Are you for real? I'm repeating things people tell me and showing the response of the Board, and you call me "tempest" and spinning a "conspiracy theory?" I KNOW the compromise was discussed by Patrick - I quoted that last time. But tell me Moderator deWitt NEVER declined to read the compromise and I'll revise what I said; from people who were there, he said "no" at first.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, are you serious? You expect the Board to implement these changes... how? They didn't EXIST a week later, says Synod. The only way they EXIST anymore is the "consipiracy" you cite with the injunction. So Synod abolishes the current Board, and you blast them for not doing what they offered to do? They were never given a chance. And you editorialize about whether their resolution was truthul or lies; there is no evidence to support that claim, yet a few days ago I pointed out a blatant contradiction between what deWitt said and what his Commission did, and NEVER used the "L" word. "Tempest" indeed! And I'd love to see your source for the BoT, Faculty, and Admin saying Chuck is "accurate."
The BoT presented the resolution as a very large olive branch after a morning of deliberation. In my opinion it was presented as an attempted "Solomonic" decision to avoid killing the baby (Erskine).
ReplyDeleteApparently the "Baby" is not important to the "Commission".
The vision of the Moderator's Commission appears to be more important than the lives jobs and efforts of the faculty as well as accreditation. The students (apparently not the "SAFE" students) certainly appear to have received very little consideration. I thought they were the one's we wanted to impact. Shame on us all for not considering the impact of our "negotiations" on them.Their educational lives are certainly being influenced(assaulted and possibly insulted).
Apparently the "Baby" does not matter.
It certainly apppears in danger of losing its life.
May God protect us all from "Our Knowledge" and provide us with HIS KNOWLEDGE.
Temperance keep going. If you are called a Tempest be not dismayed. Hopefully some sense is being accompleished.
"I KNOW the compromise was discussed by Patrick - I quoted that last time. But tell me Moderator deWitt NEVER declined to read the compromise and I'll revise what I said; from people who were there, he said "no" at first."
ReplyDeleteIt was read by Ray Cameron.
If memory serves me correctly.
ReplyDeleteAnd it does serve me correctly and Temperance, someone is giving you wrong information. Here's the Aquila Report write up of the relevant portion of the meeting:
ReplyDelete"...First, the Synod would hear a formal statement from the current Board of Trustees regarding the MC recommendations. Then, there would be time for delegates to ask questions for clarification from the MC. Then, hear statements from other interested parties to the situation. Finally the Synod would move to debate on the issues and a final vote.
First to speak for the Board was Joseph Patrick, a Ruling Elder from First ARP Church in Rock Hill, SC and the Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Erskine. The Chairman was unable to attend due to professional responsibilities at home.
Mr. Patrick described the actions of the Board after they first heard the proposed recommendations of the MC at the meeting in Due West on February 18-19. He reported that, while the Board was in agreement that many changes were needed in the governance of the institutions, they were not in agreement with several of the proposed recommendations, including who would be responsible to rewrite the by-laws and the proposed size of a new Board structure.
He expressed additional concerns from the Board as to the affect the proposed changes would have on academic accreditation, the impressions the public would have concerning these changes which might affect giving to the school, and especially the ability of the Erskine family to deal with such dramatic change. He hoped the Synod would make any changes that day in both a redemptive and satisfactory manner.
Mr. Patrick then introduced another Board Member, Ray Cameron, who read a resolution adopted by the Board by member Ray Cameron. The resolution was adopted on February 19th, in response to initial proposed recommendations of the MC. The statement indicated that the Board agreed in principle that changes were need, but preferred to move to a reduced size-board at a slower pace, rather than make the change all at once. The board agreed to forward on the key issues facing the schools, including financial problems, conflicts of interest, integration of faith and learning, and fully implementing Synod policies, again at a slower pace.
The Board agreed that the by-laws needed to be revised, but objected to the fact that 3 of the 5 members of the proposed committee to do this work were members of the MC and only two were from the Board.
The Board also agreed to not promote any executive Vice Presidents or grant tenure to any professors until a new President of the institutions was in place (a search committee is currently active to replace Dr. Randy Ruble, who will retire in June). The Board had adopted the resolution without dissent.
Vice Chairman Patrick returned to continue his comments. He expressed that the Board, having heard from their attorneys, disagreed with the MC interpretation of state law. The Board felt they legally hold title to the property and had fiduciary responsibility, and that they must ensure that harm is not brought to the institutions. The Board feared that harm might be brought by implementing the MC recommendations...."
Ray Cameron's reading of the BoT response was a planned part of the BoT presentation at the called meeting; so, where did you get the idea that, "Moderator deWitt rejected that request, saying delegates could read it for themselves"?
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying (I linked to that article last time); what I'm asking is this: at any point, did the Moderator say "no" to a request from the floor to read the compromise? That's what I heard, and that's what I wrote. Of course I've modified the offending paragraph to reflect your testimony.
ReplyDeleteI was in that session and remember no such exchange concerning the BoT response.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your testimony. I clearly erred in my report, and have struck the incorrect paragraph. Again, thank you.
ReplyDelete