Something is not smelling right and fellow alumnus Peter kerr ('06) agrees. He did a lot of leg work and digging and unearthed a few things not reported (see his comment in the Corrupt Generation post linked above for the full text).
For starters we have this:
For the
second year in a row the executive committee chose to do a “formal”
evaluation, bringing in an outside consultant and polling subordinates,
instead of the standard yearly “informal” review. This is highly
irregular, with one source even claiming that in the 22 years prior to
Greenway there was only a single formal presidential review at ATS.
and
...according to ATS bylaws article VII section B, “The President
shall be evaluated annually by the Executive Committee” but it goes on to
say “The President shall be formally evaluated triennially by the full
Board.” Thus the incorrect type of review (formal) was conducted, and
that type of review should only be conducted by the full board. Notes
from the Board of Trustees meeting do not indicate their approval was
given for a formal review
Wait, it gets better:
the task force that conducted the
formal review hired an “outside consultant” that had a serious conflict of
interest, being a friend of a runner-up rival for Greenway’s position two
years ago.[emphasis added]
Now, Prof. Kerr goes on to tell how the facts did not mesh with the outside consultant's report. Agreed upon goals were substantially met. The claim was also made that Jeff was a "polarizing force" :Among other allegations, the report claims the President
“polarized” the seminary community into half people who dislike him and
half people who support him. The faculty were “distressed and bewildered”
after the meeting with the board, and suspecting flawed data, they held a
plenary faculty meeting on September 5th. According to the minutes of the
“plenary faculty of Asbury Theological Seminary” dated September 5th, the
faculty voted on five resolutions. First, they affirmed “full confidence
in the Presidency of Dr. Jeffery Greenway” by an 85% majority. Second,
84% of faculty called for the executive committee to immediately “restore
Dr. Greenway to his full presidential responsibilities.” More than 90%
requested an emergency meeting of the full board to resolve the crisis,
and a majority resolved to postpone convocation “until Dr. Greenway is
reinstated to his presidential office.” Only one resolution did not pass,
gaining a 50-50 vote, and that requested the removal of the executive
committee chair due to his “inappropriate handling of the evaluation of
President Greenway and because of the faculty’s lack of trust in his
ability to resolve the profound impasse that these events have cast upon
the Seminary.” These votes of faculty in plenary session indicate that
the only “polarization” is not with regards to the President, but is with
regards to the Chairman of the Board. The executive committee has not
taken any action that indicates it values or respects this input from the
faculty, despite the seminary’s expressed commitment to shared governance
between the faculty and the Board.
This task farce (deliberate use of "farce" instead of "force") had no valid reason to dismiss Jeff. NONE!
Jeff resigned for the good of the school, while I am saddened by this I applaude him for it. I only wish the members of this task farce had the same integrity and would go and do likewise. If they do not, they should be removed and named persona non gratis. The most likely occurance is these people will aattempt to do that to myself and Prof. Kerr.
