Thread: The mess at GTS Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027787

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
Reports on the Episcoblogosphere indicate that 8 faculty members of the General Theological Seminary, long one of, if not the most, prominent TEC seminary, went on strike this weekend and subsequently were fired (or had their resignations accepted, depending on the source). There are apparently issues between these faculty and the Dean and President.

Does anyone know what is really going on? This is an institution which both has been under financial pressure and which occupies some of the most valuable real estate in NYC. The beginning of the end?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Thanks for starting this thread, LA Dave. I brought it up in TICTH because I really didn't know where else to put it.

Personally, I think the "beginning of the end" was when they sold off several of their buildings.
This may be the continuation of the end.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
The Living Church isn't always the most unbiased source of information, but the several stories they have posted seem to be an attempt to tell all sides of the situation.
 
Posted by maleveque (# 132) on :
 
Here is the GTS8's site: Safe Seminary
- Anne L.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by maleveque:
Here is the GTS8's site: Safe Seminary
- Anne L.

Thanks! I had just come here to post that. It seems like it will be updated regularly.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Things I think I think about the Michaelmas Massacre at GTS...

One, Dunkle was a poor choice for dean and president. He's only been a priest for 9 years and doesn't appear to have any experience in academia. Rather, prior to seminary, Dunkle was a corporate attorney. His first job upon ordination was as Canon to the Ordinary which is very, very rare. Dean and President of General Seminary appears to be just one stop on his almost Ambrosian path to the episcopacy. Fr. Dunkle represents the church should be run like a corporation faction of TEC. I'm certain he came to General and attempted to impose his vision on the seminary without seeking buy in from faculty, staff, or students.

Two, the Dean probably acted like a jerk towards faculty and students.

Three, the faculty is from the its always 1968 faction of TEC. Their argument appears to be that their claiming that Dunkle is a racist, sexist, homophobic bully who intimidates everybody and makes them feel unsafe is in and of itself sufficient justification for firing Dunkle with no investigation needed. Indeed, it looks to me like they expected the Board of Trustees to intervene and undermine the new dean as soon as they complained. They were always going demonize them for doing less than that.

Four, demands 1,2,and probably 4 are absurd. Why should the faculty get to tell the Board of Trustees who is going to represent the Board of Trustees to discuss conditions of the faculty's continued employment? Also, no seminary faculty as a collective have the kind of power they requested the board give them. With 4, I say probably because my suspicion is this whole situation is in part a power struggle between the new dean/president and the academic dean. I wonder if the academic dean was a candidate for the dean/president job in the first place.

Five, how fast the situation escalated surprised the Board of Trustees. Sisk was a bishop and seminary dean. He fully expected to hear complaints from the faculty about the new dean. As a bishop, he heard complaints from congregations when a new priest wanted to make changes. Rushing into intervene in every parish that complained about a priest would have been madness. Undermining his dean at the first sign of descent would also have been madness.

Six, the Board of Trustees fired the faculty. They didn't resign. Basically, the faculty told the Board of Trustees to choose between them and the dean. The board chose the dean.

Seven, the faculty overplayed their hand. They consulted an attorney and resorted to a strike way too soon. They did what they did because they represent the its always 1968 faction of TEC and that's what they do.

Eight, firing the faculty was foolish. The trustees made a decision that will cause GTS irreparable harm. I'm at a loss as to how so many priests and bishops on the board could be so clueless as to how their actions would be perceived by the wider church.

Nine, the dean thinks he is getting what he wants. No doubt he is chomping at the bit ready to hire a new faculty willing to aid him in remaking General Theological Seminary in his image. Does he think any distinguished Anglican scholars will be lining up to serve as his lap dogs? Is he deluded into thinking that any perspective students given half the chance to choose their own seminary would voluntarily choose to be formed in that chaos? How many bishops will continue to send postulants to GTS? Who is going to contribute large sums of money to General Theological Seminary after this debacle?

Ten, this will end with the courts deciding which side gets to claim a pyrrhic victory. I'm not an attorney. I don't know if the faculty had the legal right to strike. I don't know if trustees had a legal right to fire them. A court will decide. Both sides have unwittingly conspired to destroy the reputation of General Theological Seminary for the foreseeable future. What happens if the faculty wins a lawsuit? Do they really think the trustees will just grant them everything they wanted and everything will go back to the way it was before the new dean? What happens if the trustees win the lawsuit? Well, see number 9 above.

This is horribly sad. I pray for the seminarians caught in the middle. All too often seminarians end up as pawns in other people's struggles for power and influence. GTS has always been the High Church/Anglo-Catholic seminary. As an Anglo-Catholic, I'm disappointed that this happened. As an Episcopal priest, I can only shake my head in disgust because I know that most of the people who wield power in the national church belong to one of these two factions fighting it out in New York.

A plague on both their houses
 
Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
GTS has always been the High Church/Anglo-Catholic seminary. As an Anglo-Catholic, I'm disappointed that this happened.

There's always Nashotah house....

Seriously, there's still an Anglo-Catholic seminary in operation and thriving, and they do take postulants from TEC, both men and women. They even invited the Presiding Bishop to preach at an evensong. Given Nashotah's presence as an Anglo-Catholic seminary, I think that GTS can be shut down, and the students can transfer to other seminaries. The School of Theology at Sewanee is also high-church if not Anglo-Catholic, and more progressive than Nashotah, and could take in the GTS students who aren't Nashotah types.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Very few TEC bishops send seminarians to Nashotah. Sewanee's churchmanship is called Old Southern High Church. However, Sewanee is only high church when compared to Virginia.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The GTS website lists 11 faculty members, and they've just fired 8 of them. How are they even holding classes right now?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Don't know if they are. Letter from the trustees mentioned using the resources available to them in New York. I assume that means GTS will hire adjunct faculty.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Most academic institutions have considerably more adjunct staff than tenured staff these days (my youngest daughter is one such).

I've no idea if that applies here, but if it does it would mean that things may be persuaded to continue for a while at least.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Seminaries don't have as many. New York is a big place. GTS can cobble together a temporary faculty. You would really need the money to walk in the middle of this mess.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sad. Very sad. Certain echoes of the Wycliffe Hall cause célèbre in the UK.

Trustees nearly always support 'the local Sheriff' at least to begin with, when rumblings about leadership style break out publicly. There seems to be a reluctance to encourage a short spell of 'gardening leave' as a means of creating a cooling off period and time for an urgent independent review. Perhaps Dunkle wasn't the kind of leader who could handle that? Basically, 'I stand by my record; let others assess if the complaints have substance, for the good of the institution' is the action of a confident leader. You only do it of course if the protests are concerted and non-frivolous, not mischievous. The protests don't seem to fall into the frivolous or mischievous category.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trustees nearly always support 'the local Sheriff' at least to begin with, when rumblings about leadership style break out publicly.

I know nothing about the GTS situation. However I do recall a situation in a British theological college where the Trustees appointed a new Principal to bring about much-needed reform and to raise its profile.

Said Principal did precisely what he'd been asked to do, very energetically. However, in so doing, he rattled some of the "old stagers" rather than "taking them with him"; he also pursued a fund-raising exercise which misfired and (I think) ended up costing more than it raised. On the other hand I believe that some of his reforms ensured the academic integrity of the College which - as I understand - was in danger of losing its degree-granting status.

The net result was that the Trustees go cold feet and withdrew their support from the Principal, most unfairly in my view although he was not always the easiest person to work with! He left the College and went back to pastoral ministry, staying in his church for many years and taking it significantly forward.
 
Posted by Winstonian (# 14801) on :
 
And we wonder why church membership is declining. This sends a terrible message not only about GTS, but about the Episcopal Church in particular and about the Christian church in general. Surely we can do better than this. I can only imagine the letter that the Apostle Paul would write.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I know nothing about the GTS situation. However I do recall a situation in a British theological college where the Trustees appointed a new Principal to bring about much-needed reform and to raise its profile...

I've been reading everything I can find on a variety of websites. From what I can tell, the Dean did not upset 8 of the 11 full-time faculty members by bringing about much-needed reform. (But I must say, he has certainly raised the Seminary's profile. Many people are reading about GTS now who never heard of the place a few days ago!)

I don't know the individual in question, and I don't want to get into personal attacks, but if only a few of the comments he is said to have made were actually said (anti-women, racist, homophobic, etc. etc.) by anyone in this sort of leadership position, especially in a church institution, he should be handed his biretta and shown to the door.

I haven't heard if the "resigned" faculty members have been kicked out of their homes. I believe they all have seminary housing. (I did hear that they suddenly lost their gts.edu email addresses, which seems rather petty.)
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Let's please be very careful to avoid speculating about what particular people may have done and in general saying anything that could be read as a factual accusation of someone. Remember we are being exceedingly careful to make sure we don't get the ship sued!

Gwai,
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Dunkle seems to have been a mistake. On the one hand, he has a point when he stresses the discontinuity between what seminarians are taught to expect by their professors and what they actually experience in parish life; on the other, he doesn't really seem to have any idea what spiritual formation is. His monkeying with the chapel schedule (e.g. alternating MP and Eucharist rather than having both daily) is absolutely the wrong tack to be taking.

I realize that chapel attendance was made optional long before Dunkle was made dean. That seems like a grave mistake. Not only does it result in clergy who have no clue how to officiate at Morning or Evening Prayer; it also robs them of an essential part of spiritual formation, not just in the nuts and bolts of liturgy but in the practice of the Church's daily prayer.

Although I cautiously support his desire to concentrate on practicalities rather than the pet theories of whatever academics happen to be employed at the seminary, I happen to think that the Wisdom Year idea is only the tip of that iceberg. In the long run, a priest will benefit more from the discipline of the Office than from keeping up on the latest in source criticism--which is not to say that the latter shouldn't be studied, rather that many seminaries have lost sight of the fact that they are vocational institutions.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
You are so right, Fr. Weber, about the upheaval in the prayer-life of the seminary. This, to me, is the most unfortunate part of this that I am afraid will get little play (prayer not being sexy or controversial enough).

And it is true, sadly, what BA says about Nashotah, which is my alma mater and one of my favorite places on earth. Only the most open-minded of bishops will send their seminarians there; it took me months to convince mine. I hope GTS seminarians who are dissatisfied with the current unpleasantness will consider spending a couple of years in beautiful Wisconsin, but that doesn't change the fact that TEC's flagship seminary is currently in serious trouble.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
After General and Nashotah, Church Divinity School of the Pacific would probably be the seminary for the High/Anglo-Catholic. Seminaries fail to teach practical skills. One of the reasons is that few seminary professors have much experience in parish ministry. Seems like retired priests and bishops could take up residents near seminaries and teach classes in practical ministry. And, yes, professors often teach their pet theories as dogma rather than give a broad overview of the subject matter.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I just heard that their GTS email addresses have been restored.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
I've heard a number of people state that some of the faculty members' demands were impossible and that they therefore overplayed their hand. This strikes me as odd. It's a very normal practice in any negotiation to make a proposal, be offered a counter-proposal, etc. The Executive Committee of the Board (it was not, AFAIU, the full Board who voted to "resign" the faculty) seems to have flipped over the negotiating table and walked out.

Completely bizarre. And here we are, pontificating on about being "prophetic" and whatever else. "Rich white church with awful labor practices stands up for the oppressed..."

(And I say this as someone who deeply loves the TEC and plans to stay here forever.)
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Bostonman: It's a very normal practice in any negotiation to make a proposal, be offered a counter-proposal, etc.
Sometimes I feel we could avoid a lot of conflicts by teaching people to haggle.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I've heard a number of people state that some of the faculty members' demands were impossible and that they therefore overplayed their hand. This strikes me as odd. It's a very normal practice in any negotiation to make a proposal, be offered a counter-proposal, etc. The Executive Committee of the Board (it was not, AFAIU, the full Board who voted to "resign" the faculty) seems to have flipped over the negotiating table and walked out.

Completely bizarre. And here we are, pontificating on about being "prophetic" and whatever else. "Rich white church with awful labor practices stands up for the oppressed..."

(And I say this as someone who deeply loves the TEC and plans to stay here forever.)

Did the trustees have any obligation to negotiate with them? If not, then the faculty overplayed their hand. The faculty said that all they wanted was a meeting. The Huffington Post reported that all they wanted was a meeting. Turns out the trustees had to accept a bunch of demands before the meeting could even take place. These tactics might be standard practice in labor disputes but telling lies isn't the least bit Christian. And, no, the fact they were advised by their attorney to do that stuff doesn't impress me either. Like I said, a court will now decide who gets to win the pyrrhic victory. I certainly don't care who wins it. I certainly don't think either side is anywhere close to being prophetic.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Dunno, BA. Maybe the "dismissals" were also a tactic? Dismissals can be rescinded, or put in abeyance if there is a genuine desire to sort this out, rather than confront.

There will either be talks, or it's lawyers versus lawyers and no goodwill left. That was one of the lessons of Wycliffe Hall in the UK. And the plaintiffs won the legal battle hands down.
 
Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 
Personally, I think that the demand for a resumption of the entire round of liturgical services provided for in the 1979 BCP, at least Monday through Friday, was entirely reasonable. There's no way that a seminary should not have enough personnel to do MP, EP, and a simple said Eucharist every weekday. After all, MP and EP can be lead by students.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There will either be talks, or it's lawyers versus lawyers and no goodwill left. That was one of the lessons of Wycliffe Hall in the UK. And the plaintiffs won the legal battle hands down.

I have the impression that after the conflict was decided, Wycliffe Hall was very greatly diminished.

I think things would have gone much better if the new dean had taken the time to find out what was important to faculty and students. It's quite possible that some of the changes he made which caused an outcry were not that important from his point of view. If he saw the need to change something which was important, he could have explained at length why he was doing this.

Moo
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
Personally, I think that the demand for a resumption of the entire round of liturgical services provided for in the 1979 BCP, at least Monday through Friday, was entirely reasonable. There's no way that a seminary should not have enough personnel to do MP, EP, and a simple said Eucharist every weekday. After all, MP and EP can be lead by students.

Morning and Evening Prayer not only can be led by students, but it's very good practice for them.

Moo
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Didn't it take five or six years to sort out the Wycliffe Hall mess? GTS really doesn't have that luxury. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know who has the stronger case. If the you can't fire us we were on strike card doesn't work, then the we have tenure card might. General will lose no matter who wins in court.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Did the trustees have any obligation to negotiate with them?

Legal obligation or moral obligation if they give a damn about the institution they are trustees of when 8/11 faculty are involved?

Even if they don't have the first they have the second. And by behaving the way they have they have undermined any credibility the institution has. It's not the faculty overplaying their hand here.

quote:
These tactics might be standard practice in labor disputes but telling lies isn't the least bit Christian.
If you want to go after liars, go after the people claiming they have resigned. Rather than those who are behaving according to well understood cultural norms. By your standards "fine" is an un-Christian answer to "How are you?" when you aren't fine.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Didn't it take five or six years to sort out the Wycliffe Hall mess? GTS really doesn't have that luxury. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know who has the stronger case. If the you can't fire us we were on strike card doesn't work, then the we have tenure card might. General will lose no matter who wins in court.

Precisely why it should not ever get to court. Heck, we have been given a ministry of reconciliation. Things have come to a pretty pass when ministers can't be reconciled. Moo's right; that's another lesson to be learned from Wycliffe Hall. But what really fanned the flames at Wycliffe Hall debacle, more than the conflict over management style was the summary and legally unfair dismissal of a well respected member of staff, whose major offence appeared to be that she spoke her mind about the simmering difficulties over management style.

And if such behaviour is judged to be so undermining that those who speak out must be put away, at a training college of all places, then I can only repeat some wise words to leadership from Frank Herbert's "Dune" series.

"If you put away from you those who seek to tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections"
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Having read through the various exchanges that have been posted (that I can find), I'd just make a couple of observations.

1. There is rather obviously a collision of cultures going on here. Culture change in an organization is a really tough nut to crack, and takes years. The new dean seems to have been blissfully unaware of that, so the inevitable happened.

2. There's quite a back catalogue of exchanges to this whole thing. Only tantalizing glimpses and references are available to us as outsiders. Whoever has to sort this out (poor sods) will have to trawl through all of it.

3. The comment that the faculty just asked for a meeting was actually made by someone outside the establishment (on HuffPo). There was far more to it than just that if you read the faculty submission.

4. On the "dismissal accepted" matter - the faculty letter read very much like "either he goes or we go". Whether that counts as an implicit resignation probably depends on local case law precedent. Frankly if someone did that to me (under different circumstances!) I would tend to treat it as a disciplinary matter. Not necessarily of the party making the complaint of course. But in any event it's a VERY high-risk gamble to make, especially if you don't know how the odds are stacked.

5. As Barnabas62 observed, there are definite accusations made by the faculty that need investigation. That's true whatever the outcome is in other directions.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
This article seems to be a pretty good update on what is happening... especially the final sentence: "Late Wednesday, the board's executive committee said they emailed the eight faculty members and offered to meet with them on Oct. 16."

(October 16? Let's hope they don't become the Chelsea Martyrs.)
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
Legal obligation or moral obligation if they give a damn about the institution they are trustees of when 8/11 faculty are involved?

Even if they don't have the first they have the second. And by behaving the way they have they have undermined any credibility the institution has. It's not the faculty overplaying their hand here.

I'd argue the faculty had a moral obligation not to accompany a request for a meeting with a list of demands. The faculty should also care about the institution. Going on strike was damaging to the institution. Now, the faculty will either win their lawsuit and serve at a damaged institution or lose their lawsuit and try to convince another administration to hire them. Yeah, the faculty overplayed their hand. Now, if you had actually read the very long and balanced post I took the time to write, you would know that I also blame the administration.

quote:
originally posted by Justinian:
f you want to go after liars, go after the people claiming they have resigned. Rather than those who are behaving according to well understood cultural norms. By your standards "fine" is an un-Christian answer to "How are you?" when you aren't fine.

I did go after the people who claimed the faculty resigned. Read the post. It is not part of Christian culture to accompany a request for a meeting with a list of demands.

quote:
originally posted by Barnabas62:
"If you put away from you those who seek to tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections"

The problem though Barnabas is that the faculty did more than speak the truth. They expected the Board of Trustees to act on their accusations without doing a proper investigation. Students at General will one day be new priests in a parish. New priests in parishes often find conflict. Parishioners often write to the bishop wanting the new priest removed. Should the bishop intervene immediately and dissolve the pastoral relationship based on their words? God, I hope not. That would be madness. Again, I don't doubt that Dunkle was a poor choice and never should have been hired. Honestly, I don't know what they were thinking when they hired him. However, once Dunkle was hired, the Board had to give him more support than throwing him under the bus as soon as the faculty complained. That said, Bishop Sisk should have told him not to change the worship schedule in the first year.

quote:
originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
The comment that the faculty just asked for a meeting was actually made by someone outside the establishment (on HuffPo). There was far more to it than just that if you read the faculty submission.

Apparently, the faculty was saying one thing in public while their letter to the Board of Trustees said something very different. One the faculty is quoted in the New York Times as saying the faculty just wanted to be heard. Well, that's obviously not true. Manipulative tactics like that have no place in the Church. Of course, if you are from the run the church like a corporation camp, you can't really complain when you get corporate headaches.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This article seems to be a pretty good update on what is happening... especially the final sentence: "Late Wednesday, the board's executive committee said they emailed the eight faculty members and offered to meet with them on Oct. 16."

(October 16? Let's hope they don't become the Chelsea Martyrs.)

Tangent/

Oh, for pete's sake, who cares what the PB was wearing? Since the wardrobe of every female in a position of power must be analyzed and commented on, at least give us the relevant information. Clerical collars are clerical collars. Clerical shirts are what is important. Did the PB wear a "bishop's shirt" or not? What was Dunkle wearing?

"Katherine, Katherine, who are you wearing?"

"Whipple"

End tangent

Put the Dean on paid leave while the investigation happens. Go back to having both daily office and daily mass. The faculty goes back to teaching. Wait for the results of the investigation. Hopefully for General Theological Seminary, the investigation finds wrongdoing on the part of the Dean. Then, the seminary can get off with just a severance package for the Dean. Should the investigation favor the Dean then ring the bell on round 2.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Mindful of Gwai's warning, I'll just say that, if the allegations made are substantiated (they can be found easily enough on the Episcopal discussion and news sites), it'll be a legal and public disaster, both for GTS, and TEC in general. I was shocked, not so much by the content (although it's bad enough), as the context.

This does point to a wider problem in the Anglican communion. As illustrated by its drawn-out seppuku over various Dead Horses, it's just awful at handling conflict. I suspect that's due to its "broad church" ethos, which, far from being a beacon of diversity and respect, is a forced union of irreconcilable theologicial factions, with all the cohesion of the former Yugoslavia. We know how that turned out.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Byron wrote:
quote:
This does point to a wider problem in the Anglican communion. As illustrated by its drawn-out seppuku over various Dead Horses, it's just awful at handling conflict. I suspect that's due to its "broad church" ethos, which, far from being a beacon of diversity and respect, is a forced union of irreconcilable theologicial factions, with all the cohesion of the former Yugoslavia. We know how that turned out.
Much truth in that. However, this is within TEC and doesn't appear to involve irreconcilable theological positions. People are quite capable of bad behaviour without using religion as an excuse.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Much truth in that. However, this is within TEC and doesn't appear to involve irreconcilable theological positions. People are quite capable of bad behaviour without using religion as an excuse.

True enough, but the same mindset does seem to be at work.

If the alleged comments about race, gender and sexuality had been said in a secular context, or in a Presbyterian or Lutheran institution, I doubt there'd have been months of tortuous "negotiation" and hand-wringing; rather, a swift complaint and investigation.

The faculty seem to've believed they could, somehow, work it out, instead of recognizing that a line had been crossed, and this was now a disciplinary situation. If the allegations stack up, this should never have gotten anywhere near a walkout.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Yes, if those allegations are true I agree, though of course we've only heard one side so far, and at least there is an investigation into that being undertaken.

But it's difficult to unravel who did what, when and why to contribute to the breakdown from the partial evidence so far. I do have some additional suspicions, but they are not of the type already mentioned and I don't want to contribute to an already tangled situation.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
IMO, a major issue is that the faculty framed this wrongly.

Clear and specific allegations of misconduct got thrown in with a wider disagreement over management style. It muddied the water, and lead to a false equivalence, met with a bunch of "both sides are as bad as each other" fence-sitting.

For too long, the faculty seemed to be in denial over what was happening. If the allegations are true (I agree that we shouldn't prejudge them), just as in the wider communion, misconduct was treated as a debate. If it's as reported, I applaud them for their courage in stepping up, but wish, for their sake, they'd seen it differently from the off.

After all the smug "this is why we have bishops" response to the Mars Hill's implosion, its a cruel wakeup call.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Read all of the documents the faculty released, Byron.

The new dean has only been there for 18 months (a much shorter time than Mark Driscoll was at Mars Hill). When faculty made the formal accusations against the Dean, the trustees hired a law firm to investigate the allegations. The faculty replied that they were baffled the Board of Trustees did that because the allegations being investigated were only a minor part of their complaint. Furthermore, the faculty said they wouldn't accept the findings of the investigation anyway.
Talk about feeling unsafe. I can't imagine anybody in a leadership position feeling safe if mere accusations alone can get you fired.

[ 02. October 2014, 20:25: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Does this place not have an HR department ?

Did the trustees not notice mediators had been called in without success ?
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Read all of the documents the faculty released, Byron.

The new dean has only been there for 18 months (a much shorter time than Mark Driscoll was at Mars Hill). When faculty made the formal accusations against the Dean, the trustees hired a law firm to investigate the allegations. The faculty replied that they were baffled the Board of Trustees did that because the allegations being investigated were only a minor part of their complaint. Furthermore, the faculty said they wouldn't accept the findings of the investigation anyway.
Talk about feeling unsafe. I can't imagine anybody in a leadership position feeling safe if mere accusations alone can get you fired.

According to a post on Episcopal Cafe, signed by the "GTS Eight," the faculty have been trying to bring their concerns to the board since last fall, but didn't get anywhere. (Per the request to be careful, I won't link direct, but its titled, "A GTS Trustee reflects on the crisis at the Seminary," dated Sept. 29.)

If what's said there is accurate, it's understandable that they'd be suspicious of the board. Trust, it seems, had well and truly broken down.

A more pressing question is how it ever got to this stage. As several over on the Cafe have noted, it's unclear what the disciplinary procedure is over at GTS. This isn't just about a new dean: that seems to be the catalyst that's brought much wider institutional problems to a head.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Does this place not have an HR department ?

Did the trustees not notice mediators had been called in without success ?

No, the place does not have an HR department. Episcopal seminaries are very small operations.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I've just been reading this article in the NYT. Assuming the quotes are correct, it explains quite a lot more about how things got framed as they did (and incidentally confirms my earlier suspicion).

I think the faculty have been very poorly advised. That's a personal opinion of course, not a statement of fact, but I am prepared to back it up. That letter that the faculty sent just has so much wrong with it, it has now wrenched the whole discussion away from the substantive breakdown in management.

What is clear to me is that the faculty really did want to request an urgent meeting with the trustees, they really did want to go on strike (and not resign), etc. etc. I don't think they were being intentionally duplicitous, except insofar as they signed a letter drafted by another, they took on board what it expressed. They shouldn't have done that if it did not express what they intended.

Where to go from here? Whatever else happens, the faculty need to get across their own, unmediated concerns to the trustees. The trustees, having heard them, should agree to disregard the problematic letter, thereby opening the way to rescinding of the understanding of resignation.

Whether the faculty wish to continue with their strike (as is their right) will depend on the outcome of discussions subsequent to the action above. Both sides would be well advised to agree a framework course of action that addresses all the grievances.

Oh, and the faculty should join a proper trade union, not some hastily cobbled-together staff association. Who that might be I have no idea.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
GTS Alumni have made some good suggestions to move things forward:-

 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
To me, this is the most important statement in the NYT article linked by Honest Ron Bacardi two posts up:

quote:
The Rev. Amy Bentley Lamborn, professor of pastoral theology, explained that the faculty members’ lawyer had assured them that being aggressive in their demands was a common negotiating tactic, but in reality, the group just wanted to meet with the board at any time.
And taking a little more slice of what's around it, which equally shows a gambit which went badly wrong:

quote:
It was then that the board decided that the letters amounted to a resignation, though the word resignation was never used. “They kept saying, ‘If you don’t do these things, we can’t keep our position,’ ” Bishop Sisk said. “Well, we thought, ‘We can’t do those things, so you don’t have your position.’ ” On Sept. 30, the board wrote a public letter saying the resignations had been accepted.

The faculty was shocked. “The letter is not a resignation, it is a plea,” said Joshua Davis, a professor of systematic theology. “Please listen to us.” The Rev. Amy Bentley Lamborn, professor of pastoral theology, explained that the faculty members’ lawyer had assured them that being aggressive in their demands was a common negotiating tactic, but in reality, the group just wanted to meet with the board at any time.

They were expecting that a meeting would be promptly scheduled, and that they would be back to teaching by Monday, Dr. Davis said.

But I think this is all the end stages of something which had broken down much earlier in time.

[ 02. October 2014, 22:05: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I am surprised that a seminary would stop having a daily mass as the first formal event of the day, and I don't see what would be achieved by moving it from 8am to 10am - seems somewhat random.

I imagine there maybe some kind of churchmanship logic to saying, let's not have a daily mass - but let's have one at a strange time ?
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

If I were on either side of this debacle, faculty or Board of Trustees, there would need to be a lot of trust-building to take place before I would believe the other side would abide by that confidentiality and not be out on social media at the first sign of something not going their way. Or even before, for a variety of reasons.

I hope that I'm wrong about this and the actual faculty and Board of Trustees are not as cynical as I am.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
  • get a facilitator in for confidential discussions between faculty and board, backed by a public statement of good faith

If I were on either side of this debacle, faculty or Board of Trustees, there would need to be a lot of trust-building to take place before I would believe the other side would abide by that confidentiality and not be out on social media at the first sign of something not going their way. Or even before, for a variety of reasons.

I hope that I'm wrong about this and the actual faculty and Board of Trustees are not as cynical as I am.

As they've all retained attorneys, they could get 'em to put all those billable hours to use, and run up some non-disclosure agreements. [Cool]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
As they've all retained attorneys, they could get 'em to put all those billable hours to use, and run up some non-disclosure agreements. [Cool]

"But I only texted about the meeting to my sister! I didn't realize that my sister was included in who I shouldn't disclose to! And gosh, I'm not sure if it was me or her who accidentally re-texted it to everyone in our address book, but we really didn't mean to, honest. And that long post on my facebook page, facebook is just personal, whaddya mean by trying to trample on my constitutional rights of speech and privacy? Wait, waddya mean I should have read this long piece of paper that we all signed? I didn't know it meant, like, don't talk about this!"

[ 02. October 2014, 22:38: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am surprised that a seminary would stop having a daily mass as the first formal event of the day, and I don't see what would be achieved by moving it from 8am to 10am - seems somewhat random.

I imagine there maybe some kind of churchmanship logic to saying, let's not have a daily mass - but let's have one at a strange time ?

The typical schedule is MP at 8AM, Noon Eucharist, and EP around 5. My understanding is the new schedule was 10AM alternating between MP and Eucharist. I could be wrong. Just trying to piece it together from what I read. Don't have a clue about EP.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
I'm puzzled about legalities.

Can non-unionized employees go on strike? Of is the answer different if you're a non-unionized tenured employee like the faculty, or a non-unionized ordinary employee like me? Is the answer different if you're "non-exempt" or "exempt"? (Those being US legal terms for whether employees qualify for overtime or not when they work long hours, and it depends on circumstances of the job, but I don't know exactly which. Yes, I'll go google all this.)

Does unionizing after the fact provide you any protections for things that occurred before you unionized? As I read it, the faculty only recently unionized, certainly after their first letter to the trustees, but I'm not sure if it was before or after the board said it accepted their resignations. (Trying to just refer to that as a point in time, and not make any statement about whether they were resignations or not.

If I wrote to someone several levels higher and said "working conditions have reached a point where I cannot work with my manager any more, and I won't be at work starting tomorrow until things change" and I repeated that several times in various ways, sure I'd like it if HR got in touch and said "AR what the hell is going on, let's figure this out" (and they might do that thinking my manager was off his rocker, but they might equally do it thinking I was off my rocker, and hoping this condition was temporary.). But I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they said, "fine, you're out of here." And I wouldn't like to bet on whether I'd be eligible for unemployment or not -- that is, AIUI here in the US you get unemployment payments if you're involuntarily let go from your job, but not if you leave it voluntarily, and I don't know what happens if your fired "for cause", if that concept even still exists in US employment law.

But then, I'm an at-will employee and can be let go at any time for any reason or no stated reason at all, as long as it's not one of a certain small set of legally prohibited reasons.

Of course I suppose if I'd hired a specialist lawyer in employment law who advised me to write such a letter and if blew up in my face like this, I'd be mightily pissed - at my lawyer, at selling me such a load of codswallop and so totally misjudging how my particular employer might react.

[ 03. October 2014, 01:48: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This article seems to be a pretty good update on what is happening... (snip)

Tangent/

Oh, for pete's sake, who cares what the PB was wearing? (snips)
End tangent

Well, at least she was wearing a purple sweater.

quote:

Put the Dean on paid leave while the investigation happens. Go back to having both daily office and daily mass. The faculty goes back to teaching. Wait for the results of the investigation. Hopefully for General Theological Seminary, the investigation finds wrongdoing on the part of the Dean. Then, the seminary can get off with just a severance package for the Dean. Should the investigation favor the Dean then ring the bell on round 2.

I've been following this debacle on the Episcopal blogosphere, much of it by paying attention to which of my friends are reposting what articles. And I have to say, BA, I find your posts to be very even-handed and sensible.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

Put the Dean on paid leave while the investigation happens. Go back to having both daily office and daily mass. The faculty goes back to teaching. Wait for the results of the investigation. Hopefully for General Theological Seminary, the investigation finds wrongdoing on the part of the Dean. Then, the seminary can get off with just a severance package for the Dean. Should the investigation favor the Dean then ring the bell on round 2.

Agreed. That's what I meant by "gardening leave". The third option, that somehow a way forward can be found for Dunkle and the faculty to work together seems very unlikely now, but you never know.

I hope and pray it doesn't go to round 2.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Odd, isn't it? I get the feeling that the combined attention of the ship's crew would have had this whole business sorted by yesterday. Maybe we should offer our services...
 
Posted by sewanee_angel (# 2908) on :
 
One thing to keep in mind is institutions of higher learning have shared governance models where the faculty are supposed to have significant roles & power in all aspects of running the school. Shared governance is baked into ATS accreditation, too. Faculty aren't "just" employees with the dean/college president being the employer in a hierarchical org chart common for most businesses. A total culture clash, I think, with a dean from a non-academic professional background. And clearly this conflict has been brewing for some time. I hope de-escalation is possible.

[ 03. October 2014, 14:41: Message edited by: sewanee_angel ]
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Couldn't agree more about a culture clash, but this most pertinent thing are the alleged comments. Collegiate vs. authoritarian culture is ambiguous in a way they aren't. If Dunkle said what he's alleged to have said, he's done.

If the allegations are substantiated, the next question is how on earth TEC came to ordain such a man, let alone appoint him dean of their oldest seminary. Given the zeal with which TEC fights racism, if the reports are accurate, it's baffling how it was missed for so long, and why swift action wasn't taken by the board the second it came to light.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
What do you mean by TEC ordained him and made him dean of their oldest seminary? One bishop in one diocese ordained him. The trustees of General Seminary elected him dean. TEC as a whole had nothing to do with it. Besides, the discernment process isn't like being vetted for a top security clearance by the federal government.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
(Tangent)

Oh, for pete's sake, who cares what the PB was wearing? Since the wardrobe of every female in a position of power must be analyzed and commented on, at least give us the relevant information. Clerical collars are clerical collars. Clerical shirts are what is important. Did the PB wear a "bishop's shirt" or not? What was Dunkle wearing?

"Katherine, Katherine, who are you wearing?"

"Whipple"

End tangent


Well ranted, brother, well ranted.
quote:
Put the Dean on paid leave while the investigation happens. Go back to having both daily office and daily mass. The faculty goes back to teaching. Wait for the results of the investigation.
Thanks for your excellent posts in this thread, BA. There was a letter from a group of GTS alumni that made these recommendations and other sensible ones.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Any organization has corporate responsibility for its appointments and their actions. The bishop would've been duly elected and confirmed by the other bishops, and anyone ordained must pass through TEC's hoops. Everyone's governed by the canons.

As for whether the church could be expected to know, if the reports are accurate, this wasn't whispered in a corner.

Incredibly, it's alleged that some of these comments were made before multiple witnesses. It's also alleged that the bishop and board involved refused to listen to reports from students and faculty. If it went down as is claimed, it points to a tolerance for naked bigotry at the highest level of TEC.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
No, it doesn't. It just doesn't. This is a case of haters gonna hate. If somebody is going to hold the actions of one priest against an entire church, they were eventually going to find a reason to hate TEC. Any time spent worrying about such people is productive time wasted.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Problem with that is, if the reports are accurate, it's not just one person doing wrong, it's a bunch of very senior Episcopalians exhibiting a culture of indifference to gross misconduct.

Dumping it all on an individual is as unhelpful as blaming police corruption on "a few rotten apples." It ignores the question of whether there exist deep-seated institutional defects.

Waving these issues away with "haters gonna hate" is exactly the kind of dismissive response that needs to change.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
A seminary board of trustees isn't the highest levels of TEC. The board is investigating the claims made by the faculty which the faculty said weren't their major concern. The dean has only been there for a year. Keep in mind, the article you referred to stated the faculty didn't follow any of the procedures in the faculty handbook for filing grievances. Once again, it would be madness for a bishop or board to intervene immediately every single time a charge was leveled against rector of a parish or dean of a seminary. It would lead to absolute chaos.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
The board contains several bishops: only the presiding bishop is more senior.

Yes, the Episcopal Cafe piece does contain a claim about the handbook. The faculty, in their response, say
quote:
Senior and tenured faculty members spoke with key members of the Board, including having multiple and extensive conversations with at least one member of the Executive Committee. In these conversations, we were clear about the conflictual nature of our work with the Dean. However, in every case the faculty's concerns were rebuffed and characterized as resistance to necessary change, systemic entropy, or ignored altogether. In other words, we were either dismissed or blamed.
Not filing a complaint per the handbook (if that was even appropriate at that stage) is either a minor technical error, or, if this accurately characterizes the board's approach, the faculty had reason to believe a formal complaint would be ineffective.

It's not about expecting bishops to intervene in every situation: it's about expecting them to intervene in a situation for which they have direct oversight, and to take seriously allegations of the kind leveled here.

I can, of course, only go one the info available. If it turns out the allegations are unfounded, and the board acted properly, I'll gladly withdraw all I've said.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Keep in mind, the article you referred to stated the faculty didn't follow any of the procedures in the faculty handbook for filing grievances.

Agreed again. Just about all the grievance procedures I've ever seen are in favour of gradual escalation, allowing maximum room for resolution. A kind of "Matthew 18" way of looking at things. The aim is always reconciliation.

What I guess none of us are 100% clear about is the way earlier informal approaches went. It's significant that there was no Human Resources expertise available to help.

"When all else fails, read the instructions"? I've lost count of the number of times I've seen conflict resolution messed up simply because people were unaware of, or didn't choose to read, any standing orders in place. And once info is in the public domain, it's 10 times harder.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[...] Just about all the grievance procedures I've ever seen are in favour of gradual escalation, allowing maximum room for resolution. [...]

According to the faculty, this is exactly what they did, by first speaking to Dunkle himself, then, when that got nowhere, by approaching various board members.

The hapless Dean's now issued a statement, which, well, doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that he's a misunderstood soul.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
His writing style is saccharine to the point of diabetes - and what, pray, is "consultation not collaboration" ?

[ 03. October 2014, 19:26: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
What sounds saccharine about it? It sounds fine to me, and a lot less saccharine than a lot of what I've been reading from the various parties involved.

"Consultation not collaboration" means he'll ask for others' opinions, but take decisions on his own instead of working with others to come up with a consensus decision (or whatever short of true consensus but more than "my way or the highway" you wish to substitute). Which is pretty much what the faculty have accused him of.

[ 03. October 2014, 19:42: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
If saccharinity were the worst of his offenses, that would be one thing. But his letter is also incoherent, sanctimonious, self-trumpeting and full of grammatical and typographical errors.

Presumably when he worked as a lawyer he had a secretary who could wrestle his writing into some kind of readable shape. All I could think while reading it was, "This man is in charge of educating priests?"
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
What are some examples that you thought were inappropriate for someone in charge of educating priests?
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Or perhaps you felt your first paragraph spelled it out. I don't see what you see. What are some examples that are fatally incoherent? Sanctimonious? Self-trumpeting? What should he have said instead?
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What sounds saccharine about it? It sounds fine to me, and a lot less saccharine than a lot of what I've been reading from the various parties involved.

"Consultation not collaboration" means he'll ask for others' opinions, but take decisions on his own instead of working with others to come up with a consensus decision (or whatever short of true consensus but more than "my way or the highway" you wish to substitute). Which is pretty much what the faculty have accused him of.

Well using "beloved" repeatedly for a start, its also by turns melodramatic, patronising and passive aggressive.

I think releasing the statement was very ill advised.

And he needs to learn declaring something does not make it so, for example, his presence is not necessarily "powerfully symbolic" just because he intends it to be so.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
To the beloveds of God's church in the world
Why does he think "beloved" can't be plural?

quote:
it's Dean and President
Someone in his position ought to know the difference between possessive pronouns and contractions.

quote:
intensely serious issues
As opposed to what? Serious issues whose seriousness is not quite as intense?

quote:
Of all the allegations made - and to be made, I'm sure - when fabricated things start to circulate, I know we have a collective problem. The issue about my embrace of our LGBT community is one of those. Now we have a worldwide community problem.
I had to read the first sentence through a couple of times in order to parse it. And what's the point of the paragraph? We (whoever "we" is) have a worldwide community problem because someone is fabricating things about his embrace of the LGBT community? Does that not seem grandiose to anyone else?

I don't have the time or patience to fisk his entire letter, and I don't think anyone else really cares to see it anyway. And maybe it's not fair to expect polish and elegance from a communication which appears to have been dashed off in a moment of anxiety and defensiveness. Still, I'm underwhelmed.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
So, not worth trying to make the point that

quote:
all, all, all, all of God's children are welcome in our Episcopal Church, General Seminary, and in my life. All means all, LGBT community included.
Got it.

You may not care to read *everything* you can find about this situation, but I sure as hell hope the people who claim to want a resolution in this case will listen, and not just stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la, I can't hear you until you start saying what I want you to say in the way I want you to say it."

[ 03. October 2014, 20:27: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
I didn't address that question. I don't read his flailing and choking style as purity of intention; frankly, it looks more like desperate backpedaling to me.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
The style comes across as deeply insincere, is the problem.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
His writing style is saccharine to the point of diabetes - and what, pray, is "consultation not collaboration" ?

Translated from management speak, I believe it's (not more than) my way or the highway.

[Projectile]

The more I learn of this, the more I support the faculty. Given the allegations made against him by near the entire GTS teaching body, why hasn't Dunkle been suspended already?

Yes, the faculty's bungled strike was done poorly, but so what, it looks like they were placed in an impossible position.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
"My way or the highway" sounds like what the board brought him in to do. With a prime objective of putting the seminary on a sound financial footing and seeing that it can stay there.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Well, like I said, it points to much wider problems. If the board think its appropriate to run an academic institution like a hostile takeover, the board need to go.

A sound financial footing can be reached by agreement between all parties, and the alleged conduct isn't a necessary perquisite. If no-one wants to attend GTS, it'll fold so fast Bishop Sisk's miter will spin.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
"My way or the highway" sounds like what the board brought him in to do. With a prime objective of putting the seminary on a sound financial footing and seeing that it can stay there.

A man owns a china-shop that's been burgled five times in the last week. He buys a guard dog to watch the store. A week later, he comes in and the entire place is smashed up. The dog's gone wild and knocked everything off the shelves. But the place hasn't been burgled once since he bought the dog! Should he keep it?

Yes, the Seminary's finances have rebounded significantly during Dunkle's time there. Dunkle's leadership style has also led to a situation that will devastate GTS's finances, specifically by leading to an incoming student body of approximately zero next year. Has the Board succeeded in its goal of financial solvency through tight leadership?

My point is that "consultative" leadership may have been necessary for the financial situation. But someone who takes that approach in one area will take it in others, such as worship. Does it save the Seminary money to move MP two hours later, and not to follow it with the Eucharist? No. If anything, tiny savings in utility costs during the winter...perhaps compensated for by decreased alumni giving! (I'm trying to avoid commenting on the financial effects of the Dean's alleged comments to faculty and students.)
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
What I mean is, whether it was wise of the board or not to appoint the dean, the dean seems to be doing what the board wanted him to do. Or perhaps, as in your china-shop example, the board didn't understand what was going to come along with their choice. In either case, perhaps we should be criticizing the board as much as the dean, or at least wondering about their role in this. The letter helps flesh out a picture of what might have been going on and why. I match what the dean says about change with what the faculty said was part of the response when they brought their complaints informally to board members: they were told they were standing in the way of change.

[ 03. October 2014, 22:22: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What I mean is, whether it was wise of the board or not to appoint the dean, the dean seems to be doing what the board wanted him to do.

I know the board wanted him to improve the financial situation, but did they want him to make changes in the chapel services?

A lot of people appear to be upset by that.

Moo
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
I don't know.

Part of this is, I don't know how much day-to-day oversight or interference the board should take for a well-functioning seminary, nor how much this particular board felt they should take.

If the board hires someone with a "do what needs to be done" mandate, and that person says "changing chapel services is part of what needs to be done" should the trustees say, "oops, we meant fix the finances but don't change anything else about the place"? What if the dean says, "changing chapel services is part of what has to happen for the overall change that needs to happen to make this place financially sustainable"? Do the trustees trust the person they hired, do they decide to step in and find out more, do they believe that managing how the seminary runs is what they should allow the dean to do and they shouldn't interfere, do they override the dean immediately, do they make some other decision?

The Episcopal Church seems to be having discussions about a crisis which is about more than finances; perhaps what the board felt was that the seminary was facing, or would be facing soon, a crisis that was about more than finances, or that the financial issues were simply the canary in the coalmine for other deeper issues. I just don't know, but the group that I'll be hoping to find out more from is the the board.

I think, rather than being purely dismissible insincerity or backpedalling, that the dean's letter tells us a lot. In fact, I don't think it really backpedals at all.

For example, it confirms that there was a major and deliberate difference in what was felt to be the right style to run the seminary, and it confirms that the dean thinks that the way he has been managing is the right style. He's not apologizing for it. If he were really backpedalling, he'd have been promising more collaboration, or at least claiming that the consultations really influenced what he did a lot more than the faculty think they did, that the faculty were an important formative voice in his decisions, blah blah blah.

I also think if you read what he's saying about inclusion, that it reveals an underlying difference in approaches to what it means to be inclusive.

To take an example from EDS: is it better to hire consultants based on what you think was an impartial look at what their credentials are, and say you're being race-neutral because you didn't (consciously) consider race at all? Or is it important to believe that supposedly impartial looks at credentials may not be unbiased even if consciously you don't think you're being biased, that the race of a consultant matters in some way, and there should have been a person of color among the consultants hired? I don't think either side in that dispute would think they're being racist, but the two sides reflect very different approaches to how to not be racist, and perhaps very different ideas about what inclusion means and how it should operate.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
This paragraph from the letter seems to have some bearing in trying to think about the answer to Moo's question. We can't know the answer without hearing from the board, but it shows that at least the dean thought he had a clear mandate from the board to go beyond finances narrowly drawn:

quote:
All of this was possible because of the clarity of the mission which the Board recognized in order for General to move forward. I don't mean just the necessary financial directions (like the fast-paced deficit-eliminating directions to me), but the clear mandate to make any and all changes necessary to reform General into usefulness for the future of our church, a future not even known to our own church leaders. The decisions and leadership I have been able to exercise were because the Board gave me the tools necessary: a clear governance structure, a mandate to create order, health and vision, and the affirmation needed to make swift, clear, and difficult decisions.

 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
This is exactly why I believe the focus should be kept narrow, on the alleged comments.

The board's mandate, which, if described accurately, combines sweeping powers with the vaguest of goals, seems to've given the dean license to be an asshole. Bad as that is, it's nebulous enough to argue around.

The alleged comments, by contrast, are unambiguous. Prioritize them. If the dean felt able to act how he liked, that may of course be down to his mandate, but those are issues best confronted when he's no longer in post.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
[quote from the dean's letter]
quote:
...the clear mandate to make any and all changes necessary to reform General into usefulness for the future of our church, a future not even known to our own church leaders.
If the future is not known, how can he be sure that what he is doing is preparing for it?

Moo
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
[quote from the dean's letter]
quote:
...the clear mandate to make any and all changes necessary to reform General into usefulness for the future of our church, a future not even known to our own church leaders.
If the future is not known, how can he be sure that what he is doing is preparing for it?

Moo

You can't. But it is an argument for diversity, which he makes separately in his comments about the "General" in GTS. The more diverse you are, the more likely you are to have the resources to deal with change. It's a fine judgement though, as diversity has a cost.

(Lordy, what a(nother) ill-advised document. But it's an important one to read.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

Lordy, what a(nother) ill-advised document

Amen, HRB.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Preparing for the church of the future is a buzz phrase popular in TEC. Anything can be done in the name of buzz phrase. Those proposing change rarely feel it necessary to explain why the change will prepare us for the church of the future whatever that happens to be. That said, my suspicion is the real conflict between faculty and dean has to do with the dean's leadership style and the changes he made not so much on him being racist, misogynist, or homophobic. I'd be willing to bet money that if a dean who enjoyed he support of the faculty had made the exact same statements as the dean that we wouldn't be hearing about them.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Preparing for the church of the future is a buzz phrase popular in TEC. Anything can be done in the name of buzz phrase. Those proposing change rarely feel it necessary to explain why the change will prepare us for the church of the future whatever that happens to be. That said, my suspicion is the real conflict between faculty and dean has to do with the dean's leadership style and the changes he made not so much on him being racist, misogynist, or homophobic. I'd be willing to bet money that if a dean who enjoyed he support of the faculty had made the exact same statements as the dean that we wouldn't be hearing about them.

This gets circular, as it's unlikely that a man who makes bigoted statements would ever come to enjoy the support of the faculty.

An authoritarian ethos, and the alleged comments, could very well be intertwined.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
It's not circular at all. Other than the Asian comment, what the dean is alleged to have said isn't that bad. I've seen progressive seminary faculty justify or downplay statements made by people they like when they would have been livid if an ideological opponent said the same thing. The hypocrisy was quite frustrating.

[ 04. October 2014, 16:56: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
He is, though, specifically denying making some, claims that he did make others but they are being quoted out of context, and he offers an explanation as to one of them. This is why verbal reports need to be turned into hard evidence, which I guess is what the external investigators are doing right now. If there are multiple attestations it shouldn't be difficult.

(For my own part, there are two statements there that I couldn't conceive of any context that would explain them. But maybe he's going to claim those are the ones he didn't make.)
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It's not circular at all. Other than the Asian comment, what the dean is alleged to have said isn't that bad. I've seen progressive seminary faculty justify or downplay statements made by people they like when they would have been livid if an ideological opponent said the same thing. The hypocrisy was quite frustrating.

We clearly have different definitions of "not that bad"!

As for progressives cutting their friends a break, that's surely a universal trait, and does nothing to undermine the complaints made.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
He is, though, specifically denying making some, claims that he did make others but they are being quoted out of context, and he offers an explanation as to one of them. This is why verbal reports need to be turned into hard evidence, which I guess is what the external investigators are doing right now. If there are multiple attestations it shouldn't be difficult.

(For my own part, there are two statements there that I couldn't conceive of any context that would explain them. But maybe he's going to claim those are the ones he didn't make.)

It should be remembered that testimony is hard evidence. You can be convicted in court on the word of a single witness. Eight people describing comments made in open meetings is strong on its face.

The alleged comments may of course be inaccurate, but on the currently available info, I find the account convincing.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It's not circular at all. Other than the Asian comment, what the dean is alleged to have said isn't that bad. I've seen progressive seminary faculty justify or downplay statements made by people they like when they would have been livid if an ideological opponent said the same thing. The hypocrisy was quite frustrating.

We clearly have different definitions of "not that bad"!

As for progressives cutting their friends a break, that's surely a universal trait, and does nothing to undermine the complaints made.

You were the one who said the faculty would never come to support a person who said such things. Glad you've moved beyond that. Again, when the board hired investigators to look into the dean's statements, the faculty said that was a small issue. This leads me to suspect that what the Dean actually said and in the context he said it won't rise to a fireball offense. I could be wrong.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
He is, though, specifically denying making some, claims that he did make others but they are being quoted out of context, and he offers an explanation as to one of them. This is why verbal reports need to be turned into hard evidence, which I guess is what the external investigators are doing right now. If there are multiple attestations it shouldn't be difficult.

(For my own part, there are two statements there that I couldn't conceive of any context that would explain them. But maybe he's going to claim those are the ones he didn't make.)

It should be remembered that testimony is hard evidence. You can be convicted in court on the word of a single witness. Eight people describing comments made in open meetings is strong on its face.

The alleged comments may of course be inaccurate, but on the currently available info, I find the account convincing.

By "hard" evidence I mean corroborated evidence. At the moment it remains uncorroborated (multiple attestations by the 8 faculty almost certainly do not count as corroboration as their submission is a joint one and therefore not independent). Corroboration by someone else (e.g. a student) would count, provided they were not associated with the 8.

Without that, it becomes a "he said/she said" type of disagreement.

Actually, uncorroborated evidence is inadmissible in court in certain judicatures. I don't know if that's the case here as I'm not up to speed on how the law works there. But even in those where it is admissible (and I'm assuming a common law system based on English practice), a judge will usually issue an "unsafe to convict" order to the jury if all the evidence is uncorroborated. If it's not a jury trial of course, it's up to the judge to follow that guidance.

In any event, it's an academic point, as that evidence is being gathered right now. And as already pointed out, issues of context need to be gathered.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It's not circular at all. Other than the Asian comment, what the dean is alleged to have said isn't that bad. I've seen progressive seminary faculty justify or downplay statements made by people they like when they would have been livid if an ideological opponent said the same thing. The hypocrisy was quite frustrating.

We clearly have different definitions of "not that bad"!
At the very least, the alleged comment regarding female anatomy seem to fall under the category of sexual harassment, which includes "comments (either complimentary or derogatory) about a person’s gender or sexual preferences." To me, that is in fact "that bad."
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Regarding Beeswax Altar's comment about whether the dean's reported comments will turn out to be a fireable offense: I think they'll be a fireable offense if the board wants them to be, and they won't be if the board doesn't want them to be.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It's not circular at all. Other than the Asian comment, what the dean is alleged to have said isn't that bad. I've seen progressive seminary faculty justify or downplay statements made by people they like when they would have been livid if an ideological opponent said the same thing. The hypocrisy was quite frustrating.

We clearly have different definitions of "not that bad"!
At the very least, the alleged comment regarding female anatomy seem to fall under the category of sexual harassment, which includes "comments (either complimentary or derogatory) about a person’s gender or sexual preferences." To me, that is in fact "that bad."
Yes, if that is the context, then it is that bad. Unless the man is insane, he didn't say it in a complimentary or derogatory fashion. I'd be willing to bet that vaginas were somehow the topic of discussion. Still not a smart thing to say but probably not sexual harassment. I could be wrong.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
The "Chelsea Eight" were removed from the GTS faculty page today. The latest communication from Bishop Sisk, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, is not encouraging about the October 16 meeting.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
No movement visible, is there? - looks like a digging in to me.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You were the one who said the faculty would never come to support a person who said such things. Glad you've moved beyond that. Again, when the board hired investigators to look into the dean's statements, the faculty said that was a small issue. This leads me to suspect that what the Dean actually said and in the context he said it won't rise to a fireball offense. I could be wrong.

I said it was unlikely that a man like the one described would come to enjoy their support, which I stand by. I could of course be wrong also, but that's my impression.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
By "hard" evidence I mean corroborated evidence. At the moment it remains uncorroborated (multiple attestations by the 8 faculty almost certainly do not count as corroboration as their submission is a joint one and therefore not independent). Corroboration by someone else (e.g. a student) would count, provided they were not associated with the 8.

Without that, it becomes a "he said/she said" type of disagreement.

Actually, uncorroborated evidence is inadmissible in court in certain judicatures. I don't know if that's the case here as I'm not up to speed on how the law works there. But even in those where it is admissible (and I'm assuming a common law system based on English practice), a judge will usually issue an "unsafe to convict" order to the jury if all the evidence is uncorroborated. If it's not a jury trial of course, it's up to the judge to follow that guidance.

In any event, it's an academic point, as that evidence is being gathered right now. And as already pointed out, issues of context need to be gathered.

If judges toss uncorroborated cases, it'll be news to the procession of LEOs who testify in buy & busts!

The one jurisdiction that still makes extensive use of corroboration, Scotland, allows gangbangers to "corroborate" one another. Eight profs would, I think, have 'em beat, though YMMV. [Biased]
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
The "Chelsea Eight" were removed from the GTS faculty page today. The latest communication from Bishop Sisk, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, is not encouraging about the October 16 meeting.

So the good bishop's fired people on strike, on the pretense that they'd resigned, despite being told in no uncertain terms that he's mistaken.

Screw taking the high road, I hope they sue the bastard.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
If judges toss uncorroborated cases, it'll be news to the procession of LEOs who testify in buy & busts!

The one jurisdiction that still makes extensive use of corroboration, Scotland, allows gangbangers to "corroborate" one another. Eight profs would, I think, have 'em beat, though YMMV. [Biased]

You're missing the point! - the point is the evidence as it stands now. Undoubtedly if collected individually then individuals can corroborate each other. Which is presumably what will happen, though in my experience it's as likely to diverge as converge when you do that or test it.

Though to an extent our discussion is a side issue. These sort of things we are discussing are looking to a future where legal action is the order of the day. Hopefully it will never reach that. But for the sake of the faculty, the collection of the evidence in a more formal way is rather important.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Yes, I see your point from a rules of evidence POV. Like you, I wasn't approaching it in that way, but was saying I think there's enough for me to reasonably find the faculty's account persuasive, especially when the behavior of the board and its chair is factored in.

As for future legal action, I join in your hope that it's unnecessary, but that'll require the board to do a swift about-face.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Frank Griswold will be facilitating the meeting between the faculty and trustees.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Frank Griswold will be facilitating the meeting between the faculty and trustees.

I was just about to post that! (Isn't Episcopal News Service wonderful?)

Details here.
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
Latest from the interwebs: Board of Trustees met and chair Bishop Mark Sisk: 1. Expressed confidence in Dean and President and 2. Said GTS 8 not to be reinstated and 3. Expressed need for reconciliation.

Much pissedoffnedness on the web by alums and students.
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
GTS Board of Trustees released written statement in which they indicated that the GTS 8 would be offered the chance to apply for "provisional reinstatement as members of the faculty."
 
Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
The Board's offer to the GTS 8 is being seen as somewhat of a chimera; presumably, not respecting of tenure and no wiggle room to negotiate for salary and benefits.

The real question is, how many current students will stay on? GTS has long been considered the most prestigious, or among the most prestigious, seminaries in TEC.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Statement from GTS:

Episcopal News Service

There's a document on the safeseminary website describing spring changes to the bylaws (changes which were not publicized) which pretty much put the writing on the wall as to what the likely outcome would be, once I read it.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Board went all in with the Dean.

I guess that was an option.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I suspect this will come back to bite the GTS board on the backside within a relatively short period of time. Given the way they have handled this situation, would you go and work for them ?

[ 18. October 2014, 08:47: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Here is a commentary on the GTS debacle by the Dean of Bexley Hall (the Crusty Old Dean).

A friend posted this on facebook as a commentary. (NSFW)

As a matter of fact, the above video can serve as my commentary on the entire Episcopal Church. [Frown]

[ 18. October 2014, 15:00: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I suspect this will come back to bite the GTS board on the backside within a relatively short period of time. Given the way they have handled this situation, would you go and work for them ?

And who would want to attend GTS? And what Bishop would want to send seminarians there? And (most important to the Powers That Be!) who would want to support GTS financially?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Yeah, unless the board and trustees knows something the rest of us don't, General is in serious trouble. On the other hand, I haven't seen a single bishop condemn the actions of the Board. Perhaps, the diocesan bishops that send students to General support what the board did. Qualified professors will be easy to find. The prospect of the ATS yanking their accreditation doesn't seem to phase them either. I don't know what anybody is thinking.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Qualified professors will be easy to find.

I assume that the situation in seminaries is the same as it is in the humanities in secular universities -- there are far more people with appropriate degrees and experience than there are jobs. Am I wrong?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
You are right.

[ 18. October 2014, 22:34: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
I'm not surprised by hardball being played, that's been evident for weeks. I am surprised by the bible verses cited at the end of the GTS statement. Glib dressing up of a statement that explains nothing with "don't question us, we're in charge and you need to be reminded of gospel values that we are showing no evidence whatsoever of understanding." The worst sort of Christian cant. And this is even assuming that the board is justified in their actions: in the face of so many unanswered questions and strange events and allegations, it's still cant.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Tom Breidenthal, Bishop of Southern Ohio, released a statement supporting the faculty and condemning the actions of the board. This is a big deal. Southern Ohio is a large and wealthy diocese. Breidenthal was a former professor at GTS and Dean of Religious Life at Princeton. Everybody I know respects him.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Thanks for posting about Bishop Briedenthal's statement, BA. I found that it was published on Facebook and picked up by The Episcopal Cafe. If the comments on FB are correct, he is the first bishop to issue a statement. Here's his conclusion:
quote:
It should be obvious why I am outraged as a former faculty member; any faculty member at any institution of higher learning should be outraged by this board’s action. Why am I outraged as a bishop? Because this action will go a long way toward confirming the unchurched in their assumption that institutional religion cannot be trusted. I continue to pray that the board will reverse its decision and reinstate the eight. Then real conversation can begin.
The bit about what the unchurched think about us ... sad, true, damning.

How are people chosen to serve on the GTS board? Can they be removed? And if a lot of bishops and dioceses agree with Bishop Briedenthal, will it matter? The Episcopal Cafe notes that the Diocese of California voted today at their convention to condemn the GTS board's action.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
I join in thanking Beeswax Altar for highlighting Breidenthal's statement, that rarest of things, power speaking truth.

Now let's see Katharine Jefferts Schori step up and step in.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by RuthW:
How are people chosen to serve on the GTS board? Can they be removed? And if a lot of bishops and dioceses agree with Bishop Briedenthal, will it matter? The Episcopal Cafe notes that the Diocese of California voted today at their convention to condemn the GTS board's action.

I don't know how the GTS board is selected. Every bishop has a list of approved seminaries. Bishops can simply stop sending postulants to General. General can't stay open without students.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
How are people chosen to serve on the GTS board?

I believe at least a couple of them are elected by General Convention. So next summer's GC could be interesting. (Normally that's an election that draws very little attention.)
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Now let's see Katharine Jefferts Schori step up and step in.

Does she have any specific role or leverage here? Or just the bully pulpit?

There's a moveon.org petition asking her to act, but of course it just says she "can make this right" -- not how.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Mainly bully pulpit, I think, appropriate for dealing with bullies.

If she and the other bishops issue a joint statement condemning General, and refuse to send any more students until the board resign, the board are done.

If she and the majority of bishops stay silent, they're condoning an attack on labor that'd shame the Pinkertons, in defense of a man accused of racism and homophobia. For a progressive church to act in this way is its end.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
For a progressive church to act in this way is its end.

All of TEC is doomed? That seems a bit overstated.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
For the confused amongst us.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
And in another welcome and surprising example of episcopal cojones, Andrew Dietsche, bishop of New York, a member of the GTS board, has called for the faculty's unconditional reinstatement. Courageously, he's also apologized for his earlier cowardice in making the board's dismissal appear unanimous.

If the board act swiftly and follow their bishop's example, this fiasco may yet be redeemable.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
All of TEC is doomed? That seems a bit overstated.

Perhaps, but it markets itself to progressives. If it's seen to be giving the nod to strikebreaking, blackleg labor, and racial bigotry, its targeted demographic will, at the least, have second thoughts.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Now let's see Katharine Jefferts Schori step up and step in.

Does she have any specific role or leverage here? Or just the bully pulpit?

From
A History of General Seminary:
quote:
In 1817 the General Convention met in New York City and on May 26-27 [this Resolution] passed both Houses: That it is expedient to establish a General Theological Seminary which may have the united support of the whole Church in the United States and be under the superintendence and control of the General Convention.
The Presiding Bishop is the Chair of the House of Bishops and, I believe, also the Chair of the two Houses when they meet together (I need to check this when I have more time). So she does have more of a role than she would for any other Seminary.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Thanks, Pigwidgeon.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
For the confused amongst us.

I took Byron's post to be a pun.

[ 19. October 2014, 20:00: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
KJS is on the Board of Trustees. As Thomas Ferguson points out, KJS accepted the voluntary renunciation of ordained ministry from Mark Lawrence then Bishop of South Carolina even when no such renunciation was offered. Sisk was just following the example she set.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
KJS is on the Board of Trustees. As Thomas Ferguson points out, KJS accepted the voluntary renunciation of ordained ministry from Mark Lawrence then Bishop of South Carolina even when no such renunciation was offered. Sisk was just following the example she set.

The desire of Lawrence, and the leadership of South Carolina, to leave TEC was exhibited in a pattern of conduct over several years, something ruled on by a disciplinary board after complaints were filed from within SC.

Schori may have been technically incorrect, or may not (I'm not up on the relevant canons), but Lawrence's intent to renounce membership of TEC was clear and sustained. It's not comparable to the NY situation, based on a single letter, swiftly retracted.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Board went all in with the Dean.

I guess that was an option.

Of course they did; he's their boy. My guess is that GTS is hemorrhaging spondulicks and that the board gave Dunkle a mandate to turn things around at GTS by any means necessary. He failed to bring the faculty aboard, whether through their intransigence or his own incompetence (I'm guessing a little of both), and the board decided they weren't going to let that detail stop their train.

TEC may wind up with one fewer seminary. On the other hand, judging by numbers there really only seems to be a need for 3 or 4, not 9.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Some general questions that need answering:-
It's the strikebreaking that does it for me. Even if the allegations against Dunkle prove baseless, that indisputably happened. One of Beeswax Altar's links coined a phrase that says it all: scab seminary.

Yes, they can get some desperate postgrads in to teach, but their caliber will be rock-bottom, both academically, and morally. Blacklegs are reviled even when they're starving. To blackleg just to get on in academia ...
quote:
After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a scab.

A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.

When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out.

No man (or woman) has a right to scab so long as there is a pool of water to drown his carcass in, or a rope long enough to hang his body with. Judas was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his master, he had character enough to hang himself. A scab has not.

Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Judas sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver. Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commission in the British army. The scab sells his birthright, country, his wife, his children and his fellowmen for an unfulfilled promise from his employer.

Esau was a traitor to himself; Judas was a traitor to his God; Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country; a scab is a traitor to his God, his country, his family and his class.


 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Byron:
Schori may have been technically incorrect, or may not (I'm not up on the relevant canons), but Lawrence's intent to renounce membership of TEC was clear and sustained. It's not comparable to the NY situation, based on a single letter, swiftly retracted.

Schori accepted a resignation that wasn't a resignation to make it easier to get rid of a thorn in her side. Her supporters looked the other way. Now, a Board on which KJS sits does the same thing for the same reason. This time almost everybody is shocked and horrified because the victims of the tactic are good progressives like themselves instead of those nasty conservatives. I find it amusing the faculty supporters think the PB is going to intervene and make this all better. Let me repeat...she's on the freaking Board!

quote:
originally posted by Fr Weber
TEC may wind up with one fewer seminary. On the other hand, judging by numbers there really only seems to be a need for 3 or 4, not 9.

Sure, TEC has more seminaries than it needs. I thought General would be ones that stayed open along the CDSP, Sewanee, and VTS. Looks like I was wrong.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Schori accepted a resignation that wasn't a resignation to make it easier to get rid of a thorn in her side. Her supporters looked the other way.

Me, I'm no supported of Schori. Her early imposition of a sexuality-based "moratorium" was a disgrace, and she knowingly ordained a pedophile. Sad to say, as episcopal bosses go, she's one of the better examples.

So when I draw a distinction between the two situations, it's based on the facts, not favorable bias. Lawrence maneuvered for years to get SC out TEC: his schismatic intent was suspected back in '07, which proved well founded. He should never have been raised to the purple.

Even if Schori acted wrongly then, the two situations aren't comparable.
quote:
Now, a Board on which KJS sits does the same thing for the same reason. This time almost everybody is shocked and horrified because the victims of the tactic are good progressives like themselves instead of those nasty conservatives. I find it amusing the faculty supporters think the PB is going to intervene and make this all better. Let me repeat...she's on the freaking Board!
So's the bishop of NY, who's now repented and apologized. As pressure grows, Schori may well do likewise. If not, her legacy will be, to say the least, tarnished.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
And now the Bishop of New Jersey has, reluctantly, gotten of the fence, and agreed to support Dietsche's call for unconditional reinstatement.

What stands out is that he seems to have no concept of just what he's put his name to. He says his support for "conditional reinstatement" was based on "deep concern that [faculty] have not, as far as I am aware, rescinded the ultimatums." He seems not to understand that his concerns are irrelevant. He broke a strike, and fired tenured faculty not only without cause, but without even the appearance of process.

As these people so cocooned in their ivory towers that they don't even know what strikebreaking is, and why it's so reviled? If so, the disconnect helps explain why TEC is in such trouble.
 
Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Schori accepted a resignation that wasn't a resignation to make it easier to get rid of a thorn in her side. Her supporters looked the other way.

Me, I'm no supported of Schori. Her early imposition of a sexuality-based "moratorium" was a disgrace, and she knowingly ordained a pedophile. Sad to say, as episcopal bosses go, she's one of the better examples.

So when I draw a distinction between the two situations, it's based on the facts, not favorable bias. Lawrence maneuvered for years to get SC out TEC: his schismatic intent was suspected back in '07, which proved well founded. He should never have been raised to the purple.

Even if Schori acted wrongly then, the two situations aren't comparable.
quote:
Now, a Board on which KJS sits does the same thing for the same reason. This time almost everybody is shocked and horrified because the victims of the tactic are good progressives like themselves instead of those nasty conservatives. I find it amusing the faculty supporters think the PB is going to intervene and make this all better. Let me repeat...she's on the freaking Board!
So's the bishop of NY, who's now repented and apologized. As pressure grows, Schori may well do likewise. If not, her legacy will be, to say the least, tarnished.

Mark Lowrance ought to have been dealt with a church trial under Title IV for violating the canons on abandonment of communion. That would have been fair and just. But interpreting verbal remarks at a convention as a resignation of orders is a flat-out violation of our canons. The canon concerning resignation requires a written letter of resignation and it is intended only for cases when the bishop or priest is renouncing ordained ministry completely.

As for the seminary situation, construing a work stoppage as a resignation seems to be a logical extension of the same theory. I'm much more in sympathy with the GTS 8 than I am with +Mark. But they've been treated in the same way by the powers that be in TEC.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
And now the Bishop of New Jersey has, reluctantly, gotten of the fence, and agreed to support Dietsche's call for unconditional reinstatement.

What stands out is that he seems to have no concept of just what he's put his name to. He says his support for "conditional reinstatement" was based on "deep concern that [faculty] have not, as far as I am aware, rescinded the ultimatums." He seems not to understand that his concerns are irrelevant. He broke a strike, and fired tenured faculty not only without cause, but without even the appearance of process.

As these people so cocooned in their ivory towers that they don't even know what strikebreaking is, and why it's so reviled? If so, the disconnect helps explain why TEC is in such trouble.

I really don't think this old left view of striking workers resonates quite as much as you think it does in the 21st century US. I'm also not sure the faculty had a legal right to strike either. We may yet hear a judge's opinion of that. Firing them and calling it a resignation is the main problem even if it turns out to be legal. Not ad
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Try, accepting (arguendo) that Lawrence was entitled to a trial, due to his clear, declared intent to secede from TEC, and take his diocese with him, I'd rank the wrong as minor compared to the New York fubar. The NYC power imbalance just isn't there in SC, and if Lawrence intended to use his trial as a platform, it could've destroyed the church. The constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Beeswax Altar, what matters isn't how this strikebreaking plays in some right-to-work red state, but amongst the progressive constituency courted by TEC. With the breakaway of most of its conservative wing, and the end of its role as de facto national church, that's its target demographic in the marketplace of religion. Even if they're limosine liberals, the allegations of bigotry will hit home.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Lawrence's trial would not have destroyed TEC. That's just silly. If the evidence he intended to leave TEC was that obvious, the thing to do was to follow the canons. However, one thing I've learned about politics in TEC is that only those who disagree with you are required to obey the constitution and canons.

I'm not talking about right to work red states. I'm talking about the US as a whole. Striking workers just don't get as much sympathy as they used to get. I live in a rust belt state with a complex view of unions and strikes. Besides, TEC shouldn't have a constituency to which we market. If we do, we've already ceased to be a church that proclaims the gospel.

In fact, the statement of the Bishop of New Jersey represents everything wrong with TEC leadership. He calls on the Board to contract with a mediator outside of TEC to facilitate reconciliation etc... What kind of bullshit statement is that? You don't have to look outside of TEC, bishop. I'm Beeswax Altar of BA Spiritual Solutions. At BASS, we offer a number of sacramental services designed to maximize the grace received by our clients. Sounds like you need our Reconciliation package with the added confession and listening modules.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
I wish you joy in your startup. [Big Grin]

OK, hyperbole at play in " destroyed," but a trial would've been a circus, a protracted stage for Lawrence to seek converts and destabilize TEC, all with a verdict never in doubt.

I've gone read the canon, and the sticking point is the written notification limb. Given Lawrence's very public statements, and institutional support down south (just what is it with SC and secession ...), that's a technicality. Schori fulfilled the advice and consent provision, which is the safeguard. She does appear to've obeyed the spirit of the law.

As for labor, it's no wonder that folk are ambivalent about unions in the ghost town of American industry. TEC appeals to an altogether more idealistic crowd. Whether it should or not is, of course, a matter for debate. As a believer in the market, I'm all for it.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Byron, I've not really been following this thread, but a Director and a Board of Trustees who take advantage of staff who have withdrawn their labour to sack them, may be aggressive or even bullying, but they aren't scabs or strikebreakers. They're the bosses. You expect them to try and suppress strikes. That's what bosses do.

A scab is an offensive accusation strikers use to call people names who don't strike with them. It's designed to make them feel guilty and whip up hostility towards those not one strike from sympathisers outside the business.

A strikebreaker is a person who takes the bosses' money to come in from outside and do the job of someone who is on strike.

As this strike is an unofficial one, i.e. it hasn't been called by a union, it's difficult to argue that staff that haven't joined it are scabs. There is though an argument that, irrespective of whether they might have been motivated by concern for the students, those from outside who have agreed to cover the classes of the striking staff could have to answer the accusation of being strikebreakers.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Enoch, they're a board at a seminary, not railroad barons, and not expected to act like bossmen. You're right, scab's a strong word, but a word rightly used by the other dean in response to strong actions. People should feel wretched for so much as thinking of crossing a picket line.

However haphazardly, the faculty set up a union and went on strike. To allow strikers to be dismissed at-will takes us back to the Lochner era. What can we expect next, Pinkertons milling around 21st St., perhaps a biplane or two buzzing overhead.

At least men in the cut or at the pithead were under no illusions of being tenured. The board trampled over the faculty's employment contacts. Congrats, they've gone so far even the Lochner court would be appalled.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
You can't haphazardly set up a union and call a strike. I don't think labor law works that way at all. Both sides were wrong to treat the fiasco like a labor dispute in the first place.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Byron posts:
quote:
I've gone read the canon, and the sticking point is the written notification limb. Given Lawrence's very public statements, and institutional support down south (just what is it with SC and secession ...), that's a technicality.
Technicalities, also known as due procedure, are a key element of law. Failing to observe them carefully suggest either laziness or a very weak case.

I'm not au fait with NY labour or contract law (although it would appear that many lawyers specializing in this area will have a field day and skiing trips paid for out of this) but would seem to me that the board should have taken much stronger steps to deal with staff grievances and try to bring in a mediator at an earlier point-- perhaps they did and we don't have all of the facts yet. If this were an RC seminary, at least we could pull out Leo XIII and Piux XI on labour relations against which we could measure the board's actions.
 
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
=Of course they did; he's their boy. My guess is that GTS is hemorrhaging spondulicks and that the board gave Dunkle a mandate to turn things around at GTS by any means necessary. He failed to bring the faculty aboard

I somewhat agree up until the last clause, where I am uncertain. It seems increasingly possible that the board hired the dean with the intention that he would antagonize the faculty into resigning so that they could hire younger, cheaper replacements. And the faculty walked right into the trap. I see no need to commend the board, but neither see I any need to side with the resigned faculty. They overplayed their hand, and lost. That's how the game goes.

[ 21. October 2014, 01:15: Message edited by: Mockingbird ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
...the resigned faculty. They overplayed their hand, and lost. That's how the game goes.

And the students also lost.
[Frown]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
It seems increasingly possible that the board hired the dean with the intention that he would antagonize the faculty into resigning so that they could hire younger, cheaper replacements.

Do you have any evidence for this?
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Augustine, the rule of law isn't about following rules, it's about right defeating might. Laws are merely a tool to that end, and sometimes, spirit trumps letter. If it didn't, then what Beeswax Altar describes must prevail, and the bossmen triumph 'cause the faculty didn't fill out the correct form before it went on strike. God save us from the kingdom of the bureaucrats.

Mockingbird, I suspect you value justice a great deal more when you have need of it.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You can't haphazardly set up a union and call a strike. I don't think labor law works that way at all. Both sides were wrong to treat the fiasco like a labor dispute in the first place.

As I understand it, you have to get authorisation cards signed by the majority of effected employees and then ballot. I don't think that would be hard to organise with only 10 people and some legal advice. It is entirely possible that they followed the process laid down in federal law.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Augustine, the rule of law isn't about following rules, it's about right defeating might. Laws are merely a tool to that end, and sometimes, spirit trumps letter. If it didn't, then what Beeswax Altar describes must prevail, and the bossmen triumph 'cause the faculty didn't fill out the correct form before it went on strike. God save us from the kingdom of the bureaucrats.

Mockingbird, I suspect you value justice a great deal more when you have need of it.

Byron-- our experiences clearly vary. I found over the years that close attention to procedure was one of the really powerful defences afforded to the weak against the mighty. Time after time, I saw that this proved to be an essential tool against abuse by the powerful. In my experience, it was the bosses who, so convinced of the rightness of their cause and relying on the power of their status, ignored the paperwork.

A bottle of decent rioja will facilitate the description of about 4 or 5 cases which would substantiate this.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
If the NY courts are anything like the courts I have ever had dealings with (I used to be a regulator, not a lawyer), then they will look at things in chronological order, and they will consider what is reasonable. Part of that reasonableness is what efforts have been made to avoid or resolve a dispute. Though of course there is a big difference between a court of law and a tribunal. That's as well as the strictly legal considerations.

Back to the issue of resignation vs. dismissal. It is very regrettable that the faculty's original letter never said they were going on strike. They really should have said so explicitly. What they did say was "either he goes or we go". We now know that they never intended to resign, but that only came out later.

Most people have heard of "constructive dismissal". If your employer or your co-workers make life impossible for you, you feel forced to resign. But the courts will look to see if both sides have been honouring the contract of employment. If the situation under the employer's control was such that the employee was no longer able to deliver their side of the bargain, then they will be deemed to have fired you, and anything that flows from that will be treated accordingly, even though you said you resigned.

There is another side to that coin though. If you as an employee make it impossible for the employer to do their job, then you as employee can sometimes be deemed to have resigned, even though you never handed over any resignation.

Quite where this case stands in all this, I don't know. As I said way back at the beginning of the thread, I suspect it depends on legal precedent in that state. Finding that out sounds expensive to me.

Finally - why on earth did the faculty not join a proper professional association (which I guess passes for a trade union in NY)? There must surely be one or more that cover teaching staff in HE. There would have been two obvious benefits. Firstly, the substantial costs would have been borne by the association, not them. Secondly, they would have been advised properly on how to conduct and resolve a dispute. I still suspect that they have been poorly advised so far, though I may be wrong.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Byron wrote:
quote:
...the rule of law isn't about following rules, it's about right defeating might.
That probably describes most criminal law and a lot of stuff like judicial reviews. It doesn't adequately cover most civil law, which is about resolving disputes between contracting parties. If this ever gets to court, it will surely be a civil dispute.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Byron:
the rule of law isn't about following rules, it's about right defeating might.

That's absurd on so many levels. One, it assumes that might is always wrong. The seminary has more might than the faculty. Hence, faculty is right and the seminary is wrong. So, let's suppose the NLRB brings a lawsuit against the seminary. The might of a small indebted seminary pales in comparison to the federal government which hires lawyers by the boatload and prints the money to do it. Now, the law of might makes wrong calls for the rule of law to protect the seminary against the government.

Two, your premise essentially assumes that the right side is not required to follow any rules at all. However, right is essentially being defined by you. Problem is the wrong side also think its right. Being right, the wrong side can then do whatever it takes to triumph. Unfortunately, both sides assuming that they were right and could do whatever it took to triumph is what got us in this mess in the first place. Indeed, as I previously said, TEC has been operating this way for sometime and it isn't the least bit Christian. I roll my eyes whenever I read the phrase "respect the dignity of every human being" because I know the person typing it really means by it.

Three, there was no reason the faculty couldn't fill out the paperwork.


quote:
originally posted by Doublethink:
As I understand it, you have to get authorisation cards signed by the majority of effected employees and then ballot. I don't think that would be hard to organise with only 10 people and some legal advice. It is entirely possible that they followed the process laid down in federal law.

It's a lot more complicated than that. 30% of the employees have to fill out cards requesting a union. These names are then sent to the National Labor Relations Board with the request that an election be held. The NLRB then contacts the employer and asks for the names of all its employees. The purpose of this is to both verify the names on the cards match actual employees of the company and to establish which employees are entitled to vote. After that, the NLRB sets the date for an election which the NLRB administers. If a majority of workers vote for a union, then the union is certified. Only then is the employer legally required to bargain with you.

quote:
originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
There is another side to that coin though. If you as an employee make it impossible for the employer to do their job, then you as employee can sometimes be deemed to have resigned, even though you never handed over any resignation.

Should this fiasco be adjudicated in court, something like this will probably be the issue. Otherwise, the faculty could just say the Board fired tenured faculty without following the protocols to do so. Maybe not. I don't know.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That's absurd on so many levels. One, it assumes that might is always wrong. The seminary has more might than the faculty. Hence, faculty is right and the seminary is wrong. So, let's suppose the NLRB brings a lawsuit against the seminary. The might of a small indebted seminary pales in comparison to the federal government which hires lawyers by the boatload and prints the money to do it. Now, the law of might makes wrong calls for the rule of law to protect the seminary against the government.

Two, your premise essentially assumes that the right side is not required to follow any rules at all. However, right is essentially being defined by you. Problem is the wrong side also think its right. Being right, the wrong side can then do whatever it takes to triumph. Unfortunately, both sides assuming that they were right and could do whatever it took to triumph is what got us in this mess in the first place. Indeed, as I previously said, TEC has been operating this way for sometime and it isn't the least bit Christian. I roll my eyes whenever I read the phrase "respect the dignity of every human being" because I know the person typing it really means by it.

Three, there was no reason the faculty couldn't fill out the paperwork.

By "right defeating might," I didn't mean we should default to David against Goliath, but that might and right should align. The rule of law is about decisions being made on the basis of reason, not power. If mom & pop sue megacorp, and their action is baseless, megacorp should win.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Byron wrote:
quote:
...the rule of law isn't about following rules, it's about right defeating might.
That probably describes most criminal law and a lot of stuff like judicial reviews. It doesn't adequately cover most civil law, which is about resolving disputes between contracting parties. If this ever gets to court, it will surely be a civil dispute.
Depending on the venue, Schori and the other bishops may well have been allowed to argue that Lawrence's antics were equivalent to notice in writing.
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Byron-- our experiences clearly vary. I found over the years that close attention to procedure was one of the really powerful defences afforded to the weak against the mighty. Time after time, I saw that this proved to be an essential tool against abuse by the powerful. In my experience, it was the bosses who, so convinced of the rightness of their cause and relying on the power of their status, ignored the paperwork.

A bottle of decent rioja will facilitate the description of about 4 or 5 cases which would substantiate this.

[Big Grin]

You're right, playing by the rules can be a powerful tool in the arsenal of David, but Goliath (with his divisions of attorneys) is no slouch at that game, so it cuts both ways. If checking the right boxes gets a justified win, great, but the if it always decides things, justice takes a back seat to legalism.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Depending on the venue, Schori and the other bishops may well have been allowed to argue that Lawrence's antics were equivalent to notice in writing.
That's quite possibly so, Byron (though it's not a dispute I've been following in any detail).

However it does presuppose an administrative model of church, which I am increasingly uncomfortable with in relation to my own church's structures.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Faculty going back to work. Year of reconciliation with outside assistance.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Faculty going back to work. Year of reconciliation with outside assistance.

Is there a link with more info?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Here is the faculty's letter accepting an apparent invitation to return to work.

At this time, I would like to offer my services as ombudsman for the GTS community. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Chast, there seemed to be some hesitance to post links in this thread which I do not understand but was abiding by. Beeswax Altar has now posted the link where I found the news.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Here is the faculty's letter accepting an apparent invitation to return to work.

At this time, I would like to offer my services as ombudsman for the GTS community. [Big Grin]

You'd probably end up firing the Dean,the Professors and the Board. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
It seems increasingly possible that the board hired the dean with the intention that he would antagonize the faculty into resigning so that they could hire younger, cheaper replacements.

Do you have any evidence for this?
The only evidence one needs to assert that something is possible is a lack of evidence that it is impossible.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Mockingbird, I suspect you value justice a great deal more when you have need of it.

This is profoundly irrelevant to what I wrote.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
You asserted it was increasingly possible, which is different from asserting it is possible. It implies a measure of levels of possibility. Why does that measure seem to you to be increasing?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
It seems increasingly possible that the board hired the dean with the intention that he would antagonize the faculty into resigning so that they could hire younger, cheaper replacements.

Do you have any evidence for this?
The only evidence one needs to assert that something is possible is a lack of evidence that it is impossible.
Then how are you measuring the increase of this possibility?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Lawrence's trial would not have destroyed TEC. That's just silly. If the evidence he intended to leave TEC was that obvious, the thing to do was to follow the canons. However, one thing I've learned about politics in TEC is that only those who disagree with you are required to obey the constitution and canons.

True that. And the current PB seems only to care about enforcing canons relating to real estate.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0