My Submission to ARPTALK*

[The following is humor. Please keep that in mind as you read].

Dear Rev. Dr. Charles Wilson,

Hi, long time reader, thought I'd share a few words. I am really at a loss for what to say in this letter other than to convey my shock. The thing I'm the most frightened about is that Erskine College is morally debased and has no convictions of right or wrong. But there's the rub; I myself cannot compromise with Erskine College; it is without principles. I cannot reason with it; it is without reason. But I can warn it and with a warning it must unquestionably take to heart: Erskine College must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Erskine College accuses us of admitting that its opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality. What I actually said is that the biggest difference between me and Erskine College is that Erskine College wants to destroy the natural beauty of our Christian education system.

There's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will surely persist as long as Erskine College continues to abet a resurgence of laughable exhibitionism. Erskine College's attitude is indubitably, "You don't agree with me; therefore, you must be a foul-mouthed flimflammer". Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that it's easy to tell if it's lying. If its lips are moving, it's lying. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice - especially Erskine College's macabre form of it - is. I, in turn, insist that Erskine College believes that it commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. That's just wrong.

It may not be within the scope of this letter to encourage people to restore the world back to its original balance, but I would like to mention that we are a church of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Erskine College does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, Erskine College's fans have always found a way to generate an epidemic of corruption and ecclesiastical unrest.

If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Erskine College is out to flout all of Synod's rules. And when we play its game, we become accomplices. It's not just the lunatic fringe that's in Erskine College's corner; a number of previously respectable people have begun backing it. Erskine College's fusillades sound so noble, but in fact Erskine College's opinion is that the existence and perpetuation of hooliganism is its own moral justification. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that Erskine College wants to prevent us from calling for a return to the values that made this school great. If it manages to do that, it'll have plenty of time to focus on its core mission: gagging the innocent accused of protesting obstructionism-motivated prosecutions. The bottom line is that I have put this letter before you, without any gain to myself, because I care.

Sincerely,

Temperance Dogood

 

*** Almost good enough for ARPTalk, huh? Humor generated automatically online at http://www.pakin.org/complaint. I thought it was pretty funny. I added the first sentence (“long-time reader”), changed the subjects (Erskine College/ARP Church/”ecclesiastical unrest”) erased a sentence that didn’t make any sense, and added bolding. Everything else was original. Go auto-generate your own!

UpChuck! – ARP Talk Extra 11

[A new series, “[Look the Facts] Up,Chuck!”, posted soon after I find out about each new ARP Talk missive. Because truth is not much harder to write about than fiction.]

Today: ARPTalk Extra 11, an amalgamation of old issues already covered on this blog and a few new issues. I’ll cover the new stuff.

2. “No competent person who understand what an evangelical Christian is will call EC/ETS distinctively evangelical Christian.” I begin to question my own competency since I clearly believe Erskine is evangelically Christian. Oh dear. But let me get this straight: every administrator for 35 years ignored and subverted the mission of EC? Huh? John Carson? Don Weatherman? These are two examples from this decade that are admired to no end by Synod-supporters. Not to mention editorializing “subverted.” There are no differences of opinion in Chuck-world: you either do what he thinks is Erskine’s mission, or you are a dirty rotten subverter.

4. Tenure is a terrible system that I despise. Go figure. My problem here is not the conclusion, but Chuck’s apparent ignorance as to why Erskine has a tenure system at all (it’s certainly not to increase faculty productivity). Secondly, Chuck is so blinded by rage that he never bothers to figure out who is publishing/researching/etc and who is not. I know faculty are contributing far more than he lets on. Chuck, maybe you should compile a list for us instead of weasel words like “scant” and “some.” Let us know what you find.

5. “A faculty that very largely rejects the faith of the Church they were hired to promote.” Actually, pastors promote the ARP Church; faculty promote teaching and Erskine and the BoT. I know this is confusing. I am “very largely” hesitant to challenge Chuck’s gut feeling that Erskine professors are godless atheists (or worse, Methodists), but humor me here. Does he have a list? Or do we just know it is a lot?

Did you catch what he said, though? “In a sane world, the BoT owns and operates Erskine College and Seminary in trust for the ARP Church.” What a striking contrast to the Commission reports and Mr. Wingate’s answers at Erskine when this all started! In case you have forgotten, the Commission report said, “The ARP Church owns and operates Erskine College and Seminary through the trustees it appoints,” and in the complete report, the ARP Church “owns Erskine and appoints its board.” Enjoy the little things, my friends.

6. “The Scandal of Erskine is a president who uses bifurcated disingenuousness in dealing with a personnel issue.” Uh oh, somebody’s snitching again. Now Chuck knows the “private” communications of Dr. Ruble. Chuck’s right of course: we should immediately fire Dr. Crenshaw for unsubstantiated and unproven allegations of intimidation in the classroom. This is illegal, but that didn’t stop Synod in March!

8. How exactly is Dr. Ruble to blame for fiscal mismanagement that occurred under Dr. Carson’s presidency. I’m not even going to try to figure that out.

9. The election of Ruble by one vote is not a scandal; that’s called “majority rule.” Election by half a vote would be a scandal.

10. Wait, Chuck attacks Scott Mitchell for starting the lawsuit, and then for withdrawing the lawsuit? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

11. Matthew 18:6 - “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Such a fate is clearly deserved for Dr. Crenshaw and all the other faculty, as Chuck writes, for Crenshaw winning the Younts Excellence in Teaching Award. When, exactly, did Dr. Crenshaw cause a “little one” to sin? That’s a pretty heady accusation to make, in my opinion.

12. Dr. Ruble is blamed for the current “divide” between the ARP Church and Erskine. Hm. I’m pretty sure the divide is “great” and “contentious” because of the Commission and firing the Board of Trustees – not because Ruble kept a balanced budget and increased student enrollment. Just a thought. Although blaming Ruble for all of our problems does seem like a Christian thing to do (and so convenient!).

13. Fiscal mismanagement in Admissions. Follow the budget, people. Also, I think it’s hilarious that “as far as anybody knows” means “nobody has snitched to me yet about it, so it hasn’t occurred.” Wow. Center of the universe, much?

15. The ARP Talk Editor is one of the few people who can transform a volunteer spirit, generous attitude, and commitment to one’s academic field into a criticism. Yes, Dr. Alston is on the Jump Rope committee or whatever it is. For the (third) time in your magazine, we know you’re “not making this up.” Until ARPTalk Extra 12…

16. Wow. Burnett and Hering control the Seminary. Didn’t see that one coming. And remade the Seminary in their image? Unbelievable. It’s like – it’s like nobody can stop them. You stare into their eyes and… can’t… resist… rejecting… inerrancy. (Picture of Dr. Burnett by Carvaggio)

20. Agreed! It’s important to blacklist hymns at Erskine. Next up: “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.” I hear the author challenged Church authority. Shame on him!

 

Regarding the last sentence of the issue, “simper” means “to smile coyly.” I’m not sure what this has to do with a “shallow stream” and Erskine – I think he might mean “whimper.” Actually, the entire analogy is false because the scandal of Erskine is supposed to be a roaring waterfall drowning anything in its path and not a weak coy smile flowing slowly along.

Anyway, a better sentence would be, “THE SCANDAL OF THE ARP CHURCH will continue roaring along like a deep river if Chuck Wilson continues to make personal attacks and baseless accusations.” I understand the opinion that Erskine is not correctly following its mission statement; this is something we can argue about and (hopefully) solve. What I do not understand is the illogic (example: blaming Dr. Ruble for things he had no control over), the lack of attention to detail (ex: how many professors publish?), the sensationalistic accusations (ex: Dr. Burnett and Hering control the seminary?), and the ludicrous personal attacks (ex: Dr. Alston and jump rope) that characterize Chuck Wilson’s writings.

 

Tomorrow! My own submission to ARP Talk, published on this blog, where I reveal Erskine College to be the den of asps we all know it to be.

Congrats, Dr. Norman!

[I wrote this on Saturday, but something went wrong posting it and, well, here it is. Sorry].

Dr. David A. Norman was elected by the Board of Trustees this past Friday by a unanimous vote; thanks to the lawsuit, the Board that elected him was not an interim Board but was instead the original, duly elected, legitimate Board of Erskine College and Seminary. He was selected by the presidential selection committee with the highest praise; this committee consists of individuals on either side of the proverbial fence. We must not forget that.

Had Synod never met in March, had the Commission never been formed, had a lawsuit never been filed, we all would be sitting in our own little corners of the world interested in, but detached from, the selection of our next Erskine president. We trusted the Board of Trustees before all this began; we can do nothing else but trust them now.

I have cautioned repeatedly against secrecy and speed; indeed, had a document not been leaked to the Aquila Report and reposted on this blog, nobody outside of Erskine officials and faculty would have known Dr. Norman was the elected pick. I hesitate to even include the faculty on this list – his introduction to them was bizarre and circumspect. We (the Internet) certainly would not have known about the choice until it was over, or nearly so. This goes contrary to good logic and precedent where organized student groups, faculty groups, and administrators would meet with the candidate and discuss extensively his vision for Erskine, definitions on hot topics, and so forth. Indeed, the first selection of the search committee before Dr. Ruble was picked was rejected based in no small degree on discussions with these focused groups.

I wrote that I wanted to find out everything there was to know about Dr. Norman, and many thanks to all that emailed to help me out individually, and publicly on the Facebook groups. I have heard many good things about this man, and many alumni, pastors, and students are supportive of him.

He has an exceptional academic background, experience in leadership, good contacts, a devoted Christian, a solid thinker, strong commitment to excellence in learning and Christ, and seems able to interact well with students and know what they need to excel. He is clearly ambitious and talented, and Erskine is poised where a strong president who knows how to focus the school after this recent disaster can really turn things around. We are not guaranteed success with Dr. Norman, but we are certainly not guaranteed failure.

Consider two things. First, Synod will appoint five new Board members in June; would you rather a Board plush with the possible addition of the Moderator’s own selection, pick the presidential candidate? Second, who would we wait for? Several serious candidates were considered and rejected. The Committee probably had no other immediate choices. Erskine is certainly not in a position to drift aimlessly with an interim president – or worse, without a president at all. And again, at some point the Board is going to have to vote on a candidate.* Are you willing to let some future Board of unknown composition make this decision?

*Presuming Synod does not discover “SC non-profit law” allows direct appointment of presidents. Just kidding (I hope)!

The selection of Dr. Norman was by no means ordinary, and the methodology was certainly was not desirable. But his election (which, by the way, was probably 98% sure when that document was released) starts a new page in Erskine’s future. Supporters of Synod seem glad to with join him in celebration; alumni seem just as excited. How unexpected – the first things we have all agreed upon was the selection of a president, potentially the most contentious decision since March. I believe this bodes well for the future.

I’m sure we have a lot to editorialize about in the coming weeks – I for one have many concerns and, more importantly, many question marks on what exactly Dr. Norman intends to do and what his vision for Erskine is. There is certainly a lot to write about! Fundamentally, will he side with the Synod of March 2010 or with Erskine as it had been? That is a central question we can’t answer for some time to come. But in my opinion Dr. Norman could – might – hopefully – bring about the best scenario of all: a self-described “nuanced” individual who can set firm goals for integration of faith and learning to convert enough moderates in Synod to his side (thus taking away power from the radicals). And at the same time will keep Erskine strongly liberal arts and self-governing without replaced Boards and other shenanigans, and so will win the support of the Alumni. Without a reason to fight the lawsuit will die and Erskine will slowly, gradually, return to normal. This is my hope, my prayer.

Congratulations, Dr. Norman! Good luck and godspeed! Heaven knows we need you.

The Third Hallmark

“The third hallmark of an effective board is that it ensures that the mission of the institution, as set forth in its mission statements and other governing instruments, is accomplished.” – The Commission Report

(Continuing from Introduction – Won’t Fool All of Us (First Hallmark) and The Second Hallmark)

And now the most obvious Hallmark of them all!

The immediate impetus for the Commission was the presentation of students at Synod with a petition and video asking for Synod to investigate Erskine (Students Aligned for a Faithful Erskine and the video), though Commissioners will remind you the desire had been growing for some time. Some students claimed Erskine was intimidating, but nearly all said Erskine was not living up to its mission statement. Their secret petition said, “As evangelicals we are a minority* in the classroom, on the campus,** and in committee meetings,*** and so our appeals at Erskine for greater faithfulness to its mission have not been answered. … We appeal to you, as the leaders of the Church, for your help.” (emphasis added)

*Untrue
**Untrue
***Untrue.

Anybody who knows a whit about Erskine College and this controversy will undoubtedly say this hallmark is the reason why we fight. All the justifications I listed earlier – and a dozen more, probably – have to do with this. Integration of faith and learning that SAFE wants so badly. Ending the alleged “culture of intimidation” as Daniel Wells insists. Stopping “doctrinal drift” of faculty and administrators. Making everybody swear to affirm inerrancy. Teaching Creationism as Mr. Wingate told the Greenville News he demands. &etc &etc. All these justifications are about the day-to-day operation of Erskine and the Mission statement. It is no secret that members of Synod – and vocal sidekicks like Chuck Wilson – think Erskine has wandered far afield. Didn’t the Commission take up that charge?

No, the Commissioners at Erskine shunned this point entirely! In fact, they explicitly said this Hallmark had nothing to do with the Commission at all. A man asked during the Q-and-A session, “Why do we need all this change? What's changed since you all were here? … [Later, clarifying question] If you're not here on an everyday basis, how are they going to know if things are going the way they want them to go?”

Moderator DeWitt responded, “Our commission was not charged with that kind of thing. Our commission had to do with governance, board composition, relation to the general Synod, and accountability in that regard. The kinds of issues you suggest are best put to the new president. We did nothing to interfere with campus life or anything of that kind.”

Wingate quickly added: “Let me just add in follow-up, as Dr. DeWitt has said, the purpose and reach of the Commission is not to change day-to-day life at the ground level. It is to make sure the Board of Trustees and the business management of the life of the institution are accountable to the ARP Church. ... Your president is the shepherd.” (emphasis added)

A follow-up answer here is quite odd; in fact, this is the only follow-up answer given during the entire two hours of Q-and-A. Wingate seemed to step over himself to quickly follow-up on DeWitt’s answer. Why? I frankly don’t know precisely, but I have a pretty good guess. Notice how Wingate’s answer is far clearer as to Synod’s control over the Board and its impact on campus life. DeWitt’s answer shut the door entirely on interference with campus life “or anything of that kind.” saying the Commission was concerned only with Board governance from the beginning. Wingate left the door open to acknowledge the Commission's interest in campus life and recommended changes.

In other words, DeWitt blatantly contradicted his Commission’s report. This is significant.

DeWitt primarily (and Wingate to a lesser degree) make two devastating errors here: they suggest the Commission was formed to look at how the Board works rather than what it does, and that members were not interested one iota in campus life. Both are falsehoods.

Synod cannot directly control Erskine and campus life, but they can appoint Trustees to do it for them. The impetus for creating the Commission and its formal assignment were both centered on campus life. The Commission's charge was “to investigate whether the oversight exercised by the Board of Trustees and the Administration of Erskine College and Seminary are in faithful accordance with the Standards of the ARP Church and the synod's previously issued directives.” You cannot argue that altering campus life (including classroom lectures, administrators and faculty positions, convocation, etc) are not part of this charge. Students surely didn’t form SAFE just to see the Board resized. In fact, nobody would care whether the Board was too large if Synod was happy; Synod is unhappy and so the Board is examined. In a very real sense then, “too large” is just an explanation for a Board that doesn’t do precisely what Synod wants.

Perhaps more damning for the Commissioners’ statements above is their own report. The Third Hallmark mentions nothing about governance – rather, it speaks of upholding the Mission statement of Erskine. If the Commission acted solely on board composition and governance, as DeWitt said, most of the two Commission reports would never have been included. Statements on the Culture of Intimidation? Irrelevant. Competing visions for Erskine among the Board members and the administration? Irrelevant. Why interview so many on campus about integration of faith and learning? Irrelevant. The entire Third Hallmark? Irrelevant!

Why add paragraph after paragraph of irrelevant material? No, Mr. DeWitt and Mr. Wingate, based on your own report and the students you paraded in front of Synod last year, I believe the Commission had far greater ambitions than you verbally admit to.

This issue – the Third Hallmark – is why Chuck Wilson writes, why SAFE organized, why Bill Evans and Paul Patrick agitated, why Supporters of Synod Facebook group exists, why the Synod itself churned for these last, infamous 30 years of “inaction.” Why the Commission interviewed 80 people about life at Erskine (or 150 people – they claimed both). Not size. Not finances. Not efficiency. Mission statement. Integration of Faith and Learning. Third Hallmark.

To suggest that the Commission never once considered the drastic change to campus life upon restructuring the Board plays us all for fools. As I said before, their chutzpah is getting us into trouble. We’ll lose Erskine before they’ve finished with it.

The suspension of belief does not end there.

“The Commission finds that the ARP’s directives have not been satisfied, even though this discussion has taken place regularly over the course of the last thirty years.” – the Commission Report

The Third Hallmark is a matter of opinion. Perhaps Erskine really was unfaithful to Synod’s directives, perhaps Erskine is the cesspool of liberalism and “Baal cult” worship as Chuck says, and perhaps those who started the lawsuit are “terrorists” who “bombed” the ARP Church and are deserving of heresy charges, along with a boatload of other people. Perhaps SAFE students felt intimidated by a professor or two and feel that Erskine is not safe enough for them. Perhaps Erskine is tracking to the left and these administrators are to blame and making their lives miserable is their just deserts and they need to just do their job like they’re paid to do and shut up and work…

Is Erskine faithful to its mission, or not? We must each decide. But here the question is irrelevant: Commissioners felt Erskine was unfaithful and restructured Erskine because of it. Agree or not with the conclusion, we must all understand exactly what happened. Nothing to do with campus life? Sheesh!

Integration of faith and learning is one of the most important things we can do at Erskine. Following the mission statement is crucial. Hiring excellent professors and keeping accurate finances are as well. Each of us should always work to see God honored in everything we do – even in class.

But the simple truth is this: Christians are not an undesirable caste at Erskine, professors do not browbeat students’ faith until it pours out of them, and every year many – perhaps a majority – of Biology majors find problems with pure evolution. Professors teach their subject, their faith, and how the two reconcile. You receive an excellent “secular” education to compete in this world and an excellent integration of that amoral knowledge into our Christianity. I have absolutely no doubt that administrators, professors, and students at Erskine are more dedicated to helping each other, more kind during times of difficulty, and more connected than at perhaps any other college or university in America. “Forever Connected in Christ, Learning, Life.” Sounds pretty good to me. But never forget that slogan is one of the reasons SAFE organized and Synod churned. It ignores the mission statement, you see.

We are left wondering, as always, what is expected and what will satisfy. To this day I have no idea, and I certainly have a better chance than most.

Conclusion

For the first time in my memory, Erskine made the front page of the Greenville News this year. It wasn’t about Erskine’s excellent academics or student success, either. Whether legal or illegal, this one action had far-reaching and unintended repercussions a blind man could have seen.

Admissions is down. A budget surplus will quickly turn into a budget deficit. Lawsuits and appeals work their way through the system, threatening to damage Synod’s already stretched resources and diverting already scarce resources away from Erskine. Charges of heresy will come before Synod this summer against those who stood up against what happened. And much more. Politics is never pretty; politics in the Church is disastrous.

Commissioners didn’t see the same Erskine the rest of us see. They interviewed 80 people (or 150) who all said roughly the same thing: Erskine is excellent, integration of faith and learning happens, we are intimidated by the ARP Church. Read the faculty and student interviews to see for yourself. And the Commission concluded  that “ARP’s directives have not been satisfied.” Hence the ax.

The great irony is, Synod appoints five new trustees each year. In just three short years they could have completely reworked the Board and done essentially whatever they wanted to. They had this power; Erskine gave it to them. Yet in one deft stroke of impatience they demanded their way and their theology and their Board members and dare not stand in their way!

Think of all the students who will never experience the excellent college called Erskine because they were scared away by all this. Where will they go? What an opportunity to minister and teach that is lost! Think of all the excellent faculty who will leave, or never apply at all, because of this. Think of the presidential candidates scared off by this disaster. Think of the money that was lost, the strife among friends, and the never-ending litigation that with the appeal will continue for years (?) to come.

All of this caused by a well-intentioned but misguided Synod who believed “SC non-profit law” allowed them to fire half the Board of Trustees in order to see their vision of Erskine realized instantly.

Whether Synod broke the law will take years to decide. Whether they broke morality was decided some time ago.

Three Hallmarks. Three reasons. We know clearly why the Fourteen were fired. This was all started one way; it must be stopped another way entirely. Without spite, without fear-mongering, without illegality, without personal attacks, without invective, without lies, but with calm and unyielding assurance in what is right. Things must change.

These are my thoughts.

 

On the Road to Synod,

Temperance Dogood

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)

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!

Dr. David Norman: Faster than a speeding bullet…

Like the superheroes of old, the Board of Trustees and Dr. Norman are moving faster than a speeding bullet!

The Board of Trustees will vote Friday, May 21st on the election of Dr. David A. Norman to the Presidency of Erskine College and Seminary.

We knew the Board planned to meet with Dr. Norman from the leaked email sent to Board members introducing him, but I had no idea they planned to vote and settle the issue here-and-now. Assuming my sources are correct, the Board is going to make a final vote this Friday.

(My apologies if I have misinterpreted the information I received. I am still rather incredulous and will happily amend this statement if proven to be incorrect. However, the absence of clear communication and the very possibility of the charge is almost as significant as the information itself. Send me an email or comment with any details).

My sources indicate Dr. Norman toured campus last week and met with faculty, briefly. I do not know the extent of this interaction but I believe it is safe to say that they have not interacted with Dr. Norman extensively. The extent of interaction with Alumni is far less. I have no idea how much communication candidates typically have with members of the College, but the situation with Erskine in 2010 is far from typical. I wrote before that we need an open and explicit vetting of Dr. Norman from every stakeholder involved – faculty, administration, Board, Synod, and Alumni. I stand opposed to any final vote on Dr. Norman before such openness has been achieved.

If this information is not accurate – and I do not rule that out – then we need clear communication from the Board or the Presidential Search Committee as to what they are doing. What are you going to vote on this Friday? When will Dr. Norman come to campus again? How can we interact with him?

The more I hear about Dr. Norman, the more I support his candidacy. In many respects he is a very encouraging candidate. But hearing about somebody through a third party and speaking to the man face-to-face are two very different things. What papers has he written? What are his goals for Erskine? What is “integration of faith and learning,” and how should it be applied? Does he think the Interim Board should be in power, or does he agree with the injunction order? &etc &etc.

I know almost nothing about the man and his ideas for my College, and this scares me.

My point is: whether the vote is this Friday or a month from now, we need clear and open communication from Dr. Norman. I don’t believe I ask for too much. We must always keep an open mind – especially for a candidate that shows as much promise as Dr. Norman. An open mind is crucial – but don’t let your brain fall out!