[This is the second part of a three part series on the 2010 ARP General Synod, entitled: "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly". Part 1, "The Good" can be found here.]
I wrote yesterday that there were many good things at Synod this year, and I want to reemphasize that there was much more good than bad and ugly at Synod. The few points that I will list here do not compare to the overwhelmingly positive experience I had at Bonclarken. Having said that...
The first "bad" thing that comes to mind, unfortunately, concerns Erskine. There were several motions from the floor of Synod that would have put checks in place concerning the dispersion of funds from Synod to the College. These motions all failed. The concern was that we not further alienate Erskine. This is not a bad motive: our goal should be reconciliation, not further alienation. However, that reconciliation should not come through Synod backing down on its claims that the College has acted incorrectly.
Further, when it came time to confirm those nominated for a term on the Erskine Board of Trustees, there was a motion to substitute the names of the men suggested by the special committee of Moderators that had been formed at the called meeting of Synod in March for those put forth by the Committee on Nominations. I understand the work which that committee puts into vetting each potential member of each board of the Synod, but I am unsure that the candidates which the Committee nominated were better for the College and Synod than those put forth by the Committee of Moderators. This should not be construed as a slander of the men and woman nominated by the Committee on Nominations. Their qualifications are not really the point. The point is that the Committee of Moderators put forth a slate of candidates which it believed would best serve the interests of Synod and those men were not all nominated to the board by the committee of the Synod which makes those nominations (2 of the 6 were nominated). This to me pitted the Committee of Moderators against the Committee on Nominations and brought into question the authority of the called meeting of Synod. Now is not the time to be showing a divided front, and I believe that is what happened. In the end, the slate of nominees put forward by the Committee on Nominations was confirmed. I pray the Committee on Nominations was correct in choosing those individuals.
One speaker on the floor of Synod correctly diagnosed the situation: there was a 500-pound gorilla in the room, and no one wanted to talk about it. When it was talked about, nothing was changed from the status quo. No stipulations were added to distribution of funds, and only 2 of the 6 men who the special committee of Moderator's suggested for Erskine's Board were appointed to it. We presented a divided front, and just handed the usual amount of cash over to Erskine.
This is all I have to say concerning "The Bad" of Synod. My next post will discuss "The Ugly."
Good analysis, Seth.
ReplyDeleteI must apologize for my ignorance into the particulars of the ARP Synod, but what is the purpose of the Committee on Nominations? I.e., what do they exist for?
ReplyDeleteEric: the Committee on Nominations exists to receive and evaluate potential nominees to the various Boards of Synod, such as our orphanage, the executive board of Synod, and the board of Erskine.
ReplyDeleteSo, among other things, their job is to nominate members to serve on the Board of Trustees?
ReplyDeleteEric, they themselves do not nominate anyone (as I understand it). Presbyteries and other groups (for example, the ARP Women's ministry often suggest one candidate for each board) suggest nominees. The Committee then vets the suggested nominees, to see if they are qualified to serve in whatever capacity they are suggested for. If the Committee is satisfied that the suggested nominee is qualified, then the Committee presents that nominee to the Synod and the Synod accepts the nominee.
ReplyDeleteAh - thanks! As I said, I am ignorant to the inner workings of Synod. If I am understanding things correctly, though, I fail to see the justification for your outrage at the nominations of the Committee on Nominations being accepted. In fact - again, if I understand everything - the CON was simply doing its mandated job...
ReplyDeleteAm I misunderstanding things?
Eric, first, I don't think I'd use the word "outrage" to describe how I feel. I don't believe the Synod took the best course of action, but I am not outraged. I was able to meet and speak with the Chairman of the Committee on Nominations both before and after they presented their report/recommendations. He is a good, godly man and he believes that the people his committee nominated are the best possible choices. I disagree, but I am certainly not outraged at the committee as a whole or any individual persons on the committee. Having said that, let me address your question: Wasn't the CoN just doing their job? Well, that is the heart of the issue. You see, back in March, the ARP had an unprecedented called meeting of Synod. At that meeting, a Special Committee of Moderators was set up to suggest nominees to the CoN for the Board of Erskine. The issue was: whose nominees would Synod confirm? The CoN or the Special Committee of Moderators? I believe the best course of action would have been to confirm the Special Committee of Moderators choices; however, the Synod decided to not do that and went with the choices of the CoN. Another question is: why did the CoN not nominate the people suggested by the Special Committee of Moderators? As much as I respect the Chairman of the CoN, I disagree with the CoN evaluation that those men were not the *most* qualified choices to serve on the Erskine Board. I also believe that by not affirming the choices of the Special Committee of Moderators, the Synod was not showing a united front on this issue, which is damaging to the authority of the ARP.
ReplyDeleteSo the Special Committee of Moderators was formed in March to suggest nominees to the CON, who would then present them to the Synod for approval, is that correct?
ReplyDeleteDid the CoN, after the March formation of this COM, still maintain their responsibility to vet and present nominees?
I am sorry for the lengthy process of questions, I am attempting to wrap my mind around these complex goings-on of Synod and I thank you for your patience in spending your time helping me.
Seth - I hope I haven't lost you!
ReplyDeleteEric, you haven't lost me. :)
ReplyDeleteTo answer your questions, in order: 1. Yes and no. The Special Committee would suggest nominees for the Board of Erskine, but the CoN was not *obligated* to present those particular nominees to the Synod. The question is, why not? The CoN maintained that the slate of nominees they put forward were the best qualified to serve on Erskine's Board. Those that supported the Special Committee disagreed with that assessment. The question was not one of procedural correctness--as far as I can tell, the CoN did nothing out of order--the question was one of "who is best qualified to serve on the Board of Erskine." There was a difference of opinion, and I happen to agree that those candidates suggested by the Special Committee were the best qualified.
2. Yes, the CoN still maintained their responsibility to vet and present nominees. But, of course, the Synod is free to disagree with the CoN and substitute other names for those suggested by the CoN. It just so happened that at this Synod, the nominees from the CoN were confirmed/approved, and substitute names were not.
I hope that helps clear things up. Please feel free to ask any other questions you have. I'll do my best to answer them.
So let me get this straight:
ReplyDelete-- The Committee on Nominations (CON) has the responsibility of presenting nominees for Erskine's Board of Trustees (BOT) to Synod.
-- The Special Committee of Moderators (COM) was formed in March to suggest nominees for the Erskine BOT to the CON.
-- At the 2010 June Synod, the CON presented to Synod nominees for the Erskine BOT.
-- At the 2010 June Synod, a motion was made to substitute COM's suggested nominees for the BOT for the presented list of CON nominees.
-- At the 2010 June Synod, this motion was defeated and the CON's nominees were presented.
-- At the 2010 June Synod, the presented nominees for the BOT were approved by Synod.
Is all of that correct? Were the CON's nominees presented before or after the motion was made to substitute the COM's list?
Yes, I believe you have the series of events down correctly. Procedurally, it went like this:
ReplyDelete1. The CoN presented their report, which contained certain recommendations (as all reports of Committees to Synod do). One of the recommendations was that the nominees listed therein be approved.
2. While that recommendation was being considered, an amendment to that recommendation was made from the floor, substituting the names of the COM suggested nominees for the CoN nominees.
3. Debate ensued, and ultimately, the amendment was defeated.
4. After the amendment was defeated, the original recommendation was voted on and passed. Thus, the slate of nominees from the CoN was approved by Synod.
Ah, thank you, sir! Now, I would like to present some things for you to examine.
ReplyDeleteYou object to this nomination process because "the Committee of Moderators put forth a slate of candidates which it believed would best serve the interests of Synod and those men were not all nominated to the board by the [Committee on Nominations]." You make clear that *this* is the point, the problem. The issue is *not* whether the accepted nominees, the nominees of the CoN, were qualified or not - you even state "[t]heir qualifications are not really the point."
The real point, of course, the point quoted at the beginning, is that the CoN opposed the the suggestions of the Commission of Moderators. You are right when you say that this is not an issue of procedure: procedure was followed to the letter by the Committee on Nominations. They listened to suggestions from the Committee of Moderators and submitted their evaluated list of nominees to Synod for approval. What is *not* procedurally correct is what the supporters of the Committee of Moderators chose to do. It is they who attempted to bypass the Committee of Nominations entirely when the CoN would not play their ball game...but I get ahead of myself.
Now sir, you state that you doubt that "the candidates which the Committee nominated were better for the College and Synod than those put forth by the Committee of Moderators." Why is this? It isn't because of the qualifications of the nominees - "their qualifications are not really the point." If this isn't too broad of an interpretation, you aren't looking at the nominees (or it *would* be slander to imply that they are unqualified) but rather the committee evaluating them. You believe that the Committee of Moderators has more ability to nominate candidates that are "good" for the College and Seminary than the Committee on Nominations (or, at least, a CoN who will not nominate those the CoM suggests).
Moreover, the CoM is not only qualified enough to suggestion nominees, but (according to you) endowed with all the authority of the CoN to evaluate them. Prosecutor, judge and jury, eh? I must query, though - why did you all even waste the energy by procedurally subordinating the CoM to the CoN if what you obviously intend is that the CoM's nominees become the approved ones? Perhaps you believed things would go differently? That obviously Synod would follow your hand with no questions?
Because let us be clear, you weren't satisfied with anything but the CoM's nominees being submitted and approved. When the Committee on Nominations submitted their nominees you attempted to cut not only their nominees out of the picture, but the committee as well. You followed the old fashioned way of getting things done: When opposition arises, damn the torpedoes (and the Committee on Nominations for not submitting *your* list) and full speed ahead!
As I said, if you are not looking at qualifications, but rather the evaluating committee (as you have made quite plain), then why did you all even give the Committee on Nominations a place in this attempted charade? If you only were going to settle for who the Special Committee of Moderators suggested, then why force them to be only suggestions, and subordinate them to the CoN's will? As I said - was it because you believed the CoN could not possibly oppose what the CoM "suggested"? (let's be frank, they weren't suggestions)
Was it only to continue and legitimize this cruel charade?
Eric, let me point out where I agree with your latest comment, and then where I disagree.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I agree with this statement: "You believe that the Committee of Moderators has more ability to nominate candidates that are "good" for the College and Seminary than the Committee on Nominations..."
Yes! I do believe this. Why? Because for over 30 years, the Committee on Nominations has put forward nominees which the Synod has approved, and where has that gotten us? It has gotten us into the mess we are now in, with Board members suing the denomination and suggesting that Erskine revise its charter to become an independent institution. Of course I believe the Committee of Moderators had more ability to evaluate candidates!
Now, for a couple of the portions of your comment I disagree with:
"What is *not* procedurally correct is what the supporters of the Committee of Moderators chose to do. It is they who attempted to bypass the Committee of Nominations entirely when the CoN would not play their ball game"
You are incorrect. The Committee of Moderators was duly appointed by the Called Meeting of Synod in March. They did exactly what they were asked to do: suggest nominees to the Committee on Nominations. That certain individuals, on the floor of Synod, attempted to substitute names suggested by the Committee of Moderators for the names put forward by the Committee on Nominations was in no way out of order or procedurally incorrect. If it had been, the Moderator of synod (Stephen Maye) would have ruled them out of order. If he had failed to do so, someone else from the floor would have called for a Point of Order and made it clear to the Moderator that the proposed substitution of names was out of order. No one did any of this.
But, let me digress for a moment: The Committee on Nominations is a Committee of Synod. Synod has the right and the duty to review the report of this Committee (and all other committees) and may amend the report/recommendations of the Committee at any time. Synod is free to do so. It is in no way bound to only approve the recommendations of this or any other Committee.
If you are going to argue that these substitutions from the floor were not procedurally correct, then you must include the attempt to substitute a name NOT suggested by the Committee of Moderators for a name suggested by the Committee of Moderators and put forward by the Committee on Nominations. Shall all attempts to amend suggestions from the Committee on Nominations be considered procedurally incorrect? Does this extend to all other committees, boards and agencies of the Synod?
Let me point out another statement of yours that I disagree with:
"You followed the old fashioned way of getting things done: When opposition arises, damn the torpedoes (and the Committee on Nominations for not submitting *your* list) and full speed ahead!"
Actually, by simply approving the nominees put forward by the Committee on Nominations, the Synod chose to "follow the old way"--the same old way that has resulted in all the mess we currently find ourselves in. NOT approving the nominees put forward by the Committee on Nominations would have been a break from the old way, but the Synod choose not to break from the past.
I want to end with this: it may turn out that the new Board members (the ones nominated by the Committee on Nominations) do actually serve the interests of Synod while on the Board of Erskine. I hope that is the case. However, due to the history of Board members which the Committee on Nominations has put forward (and Synod has subsequently approved--the fault ultimately rests with Synod, not the Committee), I remain skeptical. I would love to be proven wrong.