The report indicates that safeguards are now in place to provide Synod with assurance that she will be heard in the future. There is no assurance that these “safeguards” would make a difference when Synod is unhappy with the direction the Board has taken Erskine.

Below is a copy of a document written by Dr. Steve Suits who is the Moderator-Elect for the 2012 ARP General Synod. Dr. Suits is an Elder on the Session of First Presbyterian Church, Columbia, SC, and is a pediatric surgeon who also has theological degrees from two seminaries

He is also a member of the Erskine Board of Trustees as well as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee which drafted the response to the request from the Synod to be given the power to remove Trustees for cause as previously reported here.

Dr. Suits has distributed this document to all the Board members. It is not a formal ‘minority report’ in that it was not presented for discussion and vote by the Board, but is an outline of the reasons he was opposed to the response and voted against it.

An Outline of Thoughts on the ad hoc Committee’s Recommended Response to Synod By Steve Suits, Trustee & Member of ad hoc Committee

I. Introductory and General Comments

A. Four Reasons the Report Declines Synod’s Request

The report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Erskine’s Response to Synod declines Synod’s request to change the charter of Erskine for four stated reasons:

· Potential impact on accreditation
· Potential legal liability to Synod
· Potential impact on academic freedom
· Potential impact on trustees’ independence to serve the mission of the Institution.

Note that none of the reasons rises above the “potential” level, suggesting that there are no known problems with the requested charter changes, only potential ones. Also, note that the second reason has nothing to do with Erskine and everything to do with Synod and, therefore, only Synod would need to consider this as a reason to oppose the suggested charter change, not the Erskine Board of Trustees.

B. General Comments to be Noted

Prior to responding to the specific reasons for declining Synod’s request and the two additional requests to Synod, some general comments are in order.

1. Though there is language indicating a desire for close relations with Synod, the report is clear that the Synod is viewed as an “outside” or “external” entity. Much, if not all, of the concern on three of the four reasons to decline Synod’s request goes away if Erskine is regarded, rather, as an actual part of Synod. Whether Erskine is seen to be as much a part of Synod as, for example, World Witness really seems to be at the foundation of the ongoing tension between Erskine and Synod. Holding Synod to be an external body seems to be a logical confusion on the part of the committee, failing to distinguish between the ideas of distinct and separate. Though Erskine is distinct from Synod, it is not separate from Synod in the minds of many Synod members.

2. Related to the first, the report assumes an equality of relationship between Erskine and: the Synod, Faculty and Staff, Students and Alumni. Considering Synod as an outside entity may very well lead to such a misunderstanding. The relationship between Synod and Erskine is of a different kind than the other relationships (which also differ between themselves as well, but that is not pertinent to the request from Synod). This relationship is at a higher level, primarily because of the founding nature of the relationship. In terms of the metaphor of the family used in the report, Erskine is an extension of Synod (part of Synod), the students (including alumni) are the offspring, the faculty and staff assist the Synod – Erskine family in bringing up the children.

3. The report indicates that there ought to be a single-minded fiduciary obligation on the part of Erskine trustees for Erskine. Understanding such an obligation to be one of holding someone or something in trust, it appropriately describes the trustees’ obligation to Erskine. But it is not “alone” to Erskine that trustees are fiduciaries. I also have a fiduciary obligation to my family, my patients and my church, to name three obvious ones. I hold all of these to be a higher priority than my fiduciary obligation to Erskine. All trustees would have similar higher priority fiduciary obligations. Where this matters to the current discussion is with the fiduciary obligation of ARPC elders (and all Christian trustees) to the church (for Presbyterians, this would be at all levels).

4. The report indicates that safeguards are now in place to provide Synod with assurance that she will be heard in the future. There is no assurance that these “safeguards” would make a difference when Synod is unhappy with the direction the Board has taken Erskine.

Rather, the report seems almost blind to pre-March 2010 tensions: “appropriate formal and informal avenues for communication of issues and concerns between the General Synod and the Board of Trustees are in place, which have been and should continue to be respectfully, competently, and successfully utilized” (page 10, emphasis added). Does this really correctly describe the communications between Synod and Erskine over the past two decades? The report goes on to clearly deny the ongoing tensions for many years by closing its response to Synod with a section subtitled, “Effective and Working Processes Are in Place” (page 16ff). The report suggests that, now that the Board has adopted new bylaws that spell out a trustee removal process, the Synod can now have “great assurance that the Board’s self-governance works [though as yet untested by any Synod concerns] and that any such situations properly brought to the Board’s attention will be thoroughly and appropriately investigated and resolved.” This refuses to recognize past Board actions that have not brought resolution with Synod and that have resulted in the current dilemma. (It can also be understood to confess a past lack of thorough and appropriate investigation of issues brought to the Erskine Board, an understanding that I have not heretofore heard from Synod members.) Ongoing hurt feelings on both sides of the Synod – Erskine relationship seem to characterize such an estimation as overly optimistic, to say the least.

5. The report confuses “Act Autonomy” and “Composition Autonomy.” It claims that a more efficient determination by the Synod of an appropriate composition of the Board of Trustees (by recognition of Synod’s authority to remove trustees for cause) would limit the ability of the Erskine Board to act. There is nothing in the determining of board composition that necessarily limits the Board (as it is at that time composed) from acting as it alone determines to be in the best interests of Erskine. There is no essential difference between trustee appointment and trustee removal for cause; both are factors of board composition, not board action.

II. To the Four Reasons for Declining the Synod’s Request to Amend the Charter

1. Potential impact on accreditation

In the history of the “formal” relationship between Synod and Erskine as found in documentary evidence, accreditation has been a “trump card” played by Erskine for gaining agreement from Synod for desired changes. There is no denying the negative attitude of accrediting agencies toward religion and religious bodies, especially if such are “conservative” or “evangelical” in nature (this applies primarily to SACS, not so much to ATS). But published standards hold the accrediting agencies to compliance also, and limit their ability to act arbitrarily. Though I have not read the full standards of either SACS or ATS in developing these thoughts, close reading of the standards quoted in the ad hoc committee’s recommended response just does not reveal any violation by the proposed charter change. In fact, the proposed charter change would make the relationship between Synod and Erskine clearer in compliance with the quoted SACS Comprehensive Standard, C.S. 3.2.2.

Quoting an email from an ATS officer stating, “with respect to denominationally-related schools where trustees are appointed/elected by the church, the church may not withdraw appointment of, dismiss, or remove trustees once they are appointed, and that the ATS Board of Commissioners would not consider the allowance of such removal or withdrawal of appointment of trustees by an ecclesial body to be good governance — because it means that the church is the de facto board if it has the authority to remove board members for a variety of causes.” This opinion of the sender, not official edict from the accrediting body, did not quote or identify any ATS standard that such removal authority would abrogate. Her reasoning about such an authority making the Synod the “de facto board” makes the same logical error of confusing act autonomy with compositional autonomy as is apparent in the ad hoc committee’s recommended response.

2. Increased legal liability for Synod

Notice that this potential liability is not a de novo potential liability but a potential increase in a potentially already existing liability. The appointment of the trustees who control Erskine already makes Synod liable – if this argument is valid. During past dialogue between Synod and Erskine this issue has come up and legal minds specializing in such “ascending liability or “alter ego” relationships did not consider Synod’s action to remove trustees as a significant threat, contra the legal opinions of two participants in the ad hoc committee meetings. Such a threat of legal liability has become another “trump card” in Synod – Erskine discussions. As stated earlier, even if this were a significant risk, this is a concern for Synod, not the Erskine Board of Trustees.

3 & 4. Academic Freedom and Trustee Independence

Both of the last two reasons for declining Synod’s request can be subsumed under the logical error confusing act and composition autonomy. Nothing in the clarification of Synod’s ability to remove trustees for cause directly affects academic freedom any more than Synod’s appointing of the trustees. The Board acts independently however it is composed. Similarly, removal for cause only limits independence to act outside of the purpose of their appointments, which purpose the ad hoc committee’s response adequately describes. No trustee need to “look over her shoulder” to see if Synod is looking. He only needs to act in concert with his obligations of appointment. This is no more onerous than the bylaws trustee removal process, and probably less so.