We are hopeful that momentum from this meeting can begin a process to increase understanding and seek resolution. The Executive Committee has formed a subgroup to initiate such a process

The Aquila Report has learned that there is currently a proposal under discussion by a ‘Subgroup’ of the Board of Trustees of Erskine College and Seminary concerning a change in governance of these institutions.

Although it at first appeared this proposal had been discussed last Friday afternoon in Due West, SC in Executive Session, Board Chairman Scott Mitchell confirmed that it indeed was not the topic. The Aquila Report interviewed Mitchell by phone Tuesday evening.

He also confirmed that the topic that was discussed was covered by the Board’s confidentiality agreement. Board members were exhorted to maintain absolute confidentiality about the discussions. Apparently there have been several ‘leaks’ in previous years.

The proposal which is being discussed at this time is entitled “Reconciliation Scenario: One institution, one President, separate Boards” and Chairman Mitchell explained that it is a draft from what he referred to as the ‘Reconciliation Group’ that he appointed shortly after a meeting of the Executive Board met in late April.

In a joint statement from Mitchell and Vice Chairman Joseph Patrick III after that April Executive Board meeting, it was revealed that a ‘Subgroup’ of the Executive Board had been appointed (for the full statement from that meeting go here http://bit.ly/aD2uIt. The Subgroup’s purpose was described as follows:

We are hopeful that momentum from this meeting can begin a process to increase understanding and seek resolution. The Executive Committee has formed a subgroup to initiate such a process. We hope to work with those immediately involved in the situation to seek the Lord’s will in determining how it might be resolved to His glory. It is not the intent of this subgroup to speak for the will of the full Board but rather to engage in analyzing and communicating with willing parties on how this situation might be resolved.

Chairman Mitchell explained that he has not released the names of the persons appointed to this Subgroup in order to protect them from being bombarded by input from literally hundreds of different interested parties.

The proposal drafted by the Subgroup calls for two separate boards – one for the Seminary and one for the College. The two agencies would maintain their own budgets and assets (presumably including buildings).

The Seminary Board would be elected by the ARP Synod, consisting of 12 members, no more than four of whom may be ARP ‘Pastors’ (there is no clarification if this means Ministers actually serving in pastoral roles, or specifically no more than four Ministers).

The College Board, consisting of 24 members serving in 4 year classes, would be elected equally by the then serving Board and by the ARP Synod, making this a quasi-perpetual Board. Additionally, the Alumni President would serve as a non-voting member. One other absolute requirement is that at any given time, at least 50% of the Board members must be alumni of the College.

The proposal states that the new policy will be put into place on July 1, 2010, which implies that proposed changes should come to the ARP Synod in early June. However, there has been much speculation that the BOT themselves may simply make the changes to the by-laws prior to the meeting of the Synod and claim the change is final and the Synod has no right to change it. (This is, of course, the heart of the governance issue currently before the South Carolina courts.)

The Aquila Report had also been informed that at the close of the Board meeting in Due West last Friday, the concluding act was to ‘recess’ the meeting, rather than to ‘adjourn’ the meeting. The difference is that the Board could meet at the call of the Chairman at any time without the normally required 10 day notice of a meeting, and that such a continuation of the ‘recessed’ meeting could take place at Bonclarken as early as on the Monday before the Synod convenes.

Chairman Mitchell explained this was done so the Board could meet to hear the report of the Subgroup, if they wee ready to report, and take any necessary action.

For a full copy of the Subgroup’s current draft, go here:
https://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2132:reconciliation-scenario-one-institution-one-president-separate-boards-&catid=72:general&Itemid=70