As you may have noted, there are a few By Laws that I have left unaddressed for several reasons. I am afraid that, while important, they were not the highest priority when preparing for the Convention in Greensboro. There is another By Law that I might have passed over were it not relevant. Mind you, it is not necessarily relevant to an item that will come before the Convention. It was to come before the convention, in fact, but was withdrawn. Nevertheless, because it was slated to come before us, it becomes relevant.
The By Law is 36: Trustee Absenteeism. I reproduce it here in its entirety.
A. Upon the request of any entity, the Convention may remove from office any trustee/director of that entity who has excessive unexcused absences. Following such removal, the Convention shall elect a successor to complete the term of office of the person removed.B. An entity shall give written notice of any request to remove a trustee/director for absenteeism at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the meeting of the Convention which shall consider the removal. The notice shall be given to the president of the Convention, the president/chief executive officer of the Executive Committee, the chairman of the Committee on Nominations, and the individual trustee/director whose removal shall be considered.
C. If required by state law, an entity shall incorporate this procedure in its charter or bylaws prior to requesting the Convention to remove any trustee.
It is under this By Law that the Board of Trustees of the International Mission Board sought to remove Wade Burleson. I have several observations.
First, the authority and procedure to remove a trustee is clearly given to the entities of the SBC. There is no doubt they can and no doubt as to the method.
Second, the sole reason for such a removal given in the By Law is absenteeism. As I understand it, Wade Burleson has been extremely dedicated in his service to Southern Baptists at the local and state levels. His service to the IMB was appearing to take the same shape.
Third, the accusations of “gossip” and “slander” were serious charges, and if they were able to be substantiated, I think that a broad reading of this By Law would have been allowed by all Southern Baptists. This would have given the IMB BOT the opportunity have Wade removed. As I have said before, the charges were removed because they were unsustainable.
Fourth, the charges against Wade now, which keep him from service on any committee, forbidding him from bearing the load to which he was appointed by the Southern Baptist Convention, are that he is unable to get along with fellow trustees. This accusation is accompanied by several trustees who say that they are frequent dissenters themselves. Since when does the disagreement with others on the Board of Trustees result in being put in reserve without the ability to serve as appointed? Never before.
I submit that Wade Burleson should serve in the capacity to which he was appointed by the Southern Baptist Convention and that the Board of Trustees, and its chairman, stop seeking to thwart the expressed will of the Convention when it appointed him to his post.
I daresay that when the question time comes during the IMB report, my question to the Board of Trustees will be concerning why the Board of Trustees is violating the commission of the SBC by refusing to allow Wade to serve fully the post to which it has appointed him.
Of course, they can avoid such a question by reinstating him immediately. I recommend they do so.
[update]
Wade Burleson, citing frequent requests by many Southern Baptists to run for President of the SBC, has withdrawn his name from the slate of speakers at the Younger Leaders Summit II. You can find the full story at SBC Outpost.
[/update]
[update #2]
I was forwarded the relevant governing document for the removal of a Trustee from within the Board – its Trustee Manual. This is NOT the Blue Book, and it was approved by the Convention. Because the authority to govern the IMB rests with the Trustees and because the manual of the Trustees has been approved by the convention, it would seem that this document is primary for the BOT and does give authority to do exactly as they did. Mind you, I did not approve their actions, but merely said they had the right to the process they followed.
Here is 4 (E) in the IMB Trustee Manual:
The convention as Member of this coproration, in any meeting of the member and without regard to the call of the meeting, may remove a trustee prior to the expiration of the trustee’s term for any reason deemed sufficient to the convention, the election and removal of trustees by the Convention being religious acts within the scope of the free exercise of the Convention’s religion under the Constitution of the United States. A motion in an annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention to remove a trustee may be made only after the following prerequesites have been accomplished:
1. Written notice by the proponent of the motion shall have been given to the board, the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention (referred to hereafter as the “Executive Committee”), and to the trustee whose removal is sought (which trustee shall be referred to hereafter as “the Subject”) at least ninety days prior to the convening of the next meeting of the Convention.
2. Either the Executive Committee or the Board shall have approved a motion recommending or opposing removal of a single trustee.
3. Written notice of the result of any vote by either the Executive Committee or Board whether recommending or opposing removal shall have been sent to the Subject and released to Baptist Press at least thirty days prior to any vote by the Member to remove the Subject as a trustee. There shall be no requirement that such notices be sent simultaneously.
The motions to remove a trustee shall be made to the messengers at an annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention by the Executive Committee or the Board, whichever has recommended the removal, or by the proponent of the motion if neither the Executive Committee nor the Board recommends removal. The motion may be brought as a joint recommendation if both the Executive Committee and the Board have recommended removal. No single motion may undertake to remove more than one trustee. The motion to remove shall be adopted if it receives the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the messengers present and voting. If the motion to remove a trustee is adopted, the removal shall be effective immediately upon delivery to the Board’s secretary of a written notice of removal signed by the president or the recording secretary of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Any vote by the member in favor of the removal of a trustee shall be deemed as having conclusively established the sufficiency of any reason for removal. There shall be no right of judicial review concerning the removal of a trustee before, during, or after consideration of the matter by anybody referred to above.
A trustee shall be considered as having resigned when he/she ceases to be a resident member of a church either geographically within the state or affiliated with the convention of the state from which he/she has been elected as a representative.
I am seeking to find out whether this document governs the SBC, and it may. If it does, then the threat to remove any trustee that comes from the floor of the convention may be ruled “out of order” because the appropriate processes were not followed as prescribed here.
On the other hand, this document may describe only the process the BOT may take, but have no governance over the individual messengers or collective messengers of the Convention. Again, I am seeking for a definitave ruling. When I get one, I will make this a primary post of its own, so you won’t miss it.
[/update #2]
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Jason Sampler
on Apr 20th, 2006
@ 9:55 am:
Art,
To quote a great line from a decent movie (Dodgeball): Touche’
Great post. You have nailed it on this one. The Burleson issue is still not resolved. Simply because the BoT rescinded their request to have the SBC remove Burleson from the Board does not make the issue settled. There needs to be either a public apology and full reinstatement or a full disclosure of the charges brought against Burleson and, if needed, another request to remove him from the BoT. To make it public, then to ‘discipline from within’ is a joke at best and uncharitable and unChrist-like at worst.
One note of disagreement. I’m not sure if I draw the same inference from this by-law as you do. The point is that trustees (under this by-law) can be removed for excessive unexcused absenteeism. I’m not sure how that can be ‘broadened’ (to use your word) to include moral or ethical failures. I think in situations such as ‘gossip’ and ‘slander’, the Board (under THIS by-law) has no grounds upon which to stand. Either the trustee resigns (as in a case recently on another board) or he stays on. I’m just not convinced that this by-law applies to the Burleson case, even if he was/is guilty of gossip and slander, or that he ‘doesn’t play well with others’ or whatever other charge they wish to proclaim.
Just my thoughts.
Blessings,
Jason Sampler
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 20th, 2006
@ 10:03 am:
Right on Art!
Where is the apology for Wade? Keep it up!
steve w
on Apr 20th, 2006
@ 10:38 am:
Art,
If you had made a formal motion, instead of just a recommendation, I’d second it. :)
Art, or anyone, does the old “blue book” speak to anything beyond absenteeism as grounds for such action against Wade? What gave the trustees authority to handle it internally, as Hatley stated?
Can the messengers do anything besides asking a question during the IMB report to get this matter resolved and Wade fully reinstated?
In light of David Rogers’ post today click here, would it be appropriate to give Dr. Rankin a standing ovation at the convention? (I’d like to give Wade a standing ovation, but I don’t know if there will be such an opportunity.)
Regardless, let’s all give Art a standing ovation right now for these “primer” posts!!
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 20th, 2006
@ 4:17 pm:
Let the games begin!
steve w
on Apr 20th, 2006
@ 4:36 pm:
We may get that opportunity to give a standing ovation after all!!
Ron West
on Apr 20th, 2006
@ 10:25 pm:
I would comment first that it is the SBC that places trustees on the respective boards and only they should be able to remove someone. If the IMB trustees could arbitrarily remove someone, Wade would already be gone.
Second, if Wade is not restored to full status as a trustee by Tom Hatley, then someone should speak up at the convention and ask that he be instructed to immediately remove any restrictions on Wade’s service. During the question and answer time at the IMB report would be a good time to ask this question.
Third, the question needs to be asked, are our state conventions represented well on the trustee boards? If slander and gossip are reasons for dismissal from a trustee board, the IMB trustees have missed opportunities to do this before. An IMB trustee from California in the 90s accused our missionaries of being neo-orthodox heretics. At the same time he was being named a hero of the conservative resurgence in Paul Pressler’s book. As a reward for slandering our missionaries, when he completed his term on the IMB, he was immediately placed on the NAMB trustee board by the conservative resurgence leaders. If you go to last November 28 BP and read the press release on the California Baptist state convention, you will find that this same man was not allowed to be seated at their state convention because of making untrue accusations against a DOM in California. Therefore, we find one of the trustee positions given to California on the NAMB trustee board being occupied by a man they refuse to seat at their own state convention. Does that seem right? California has no way to remove him from the NAMB board. Someone at that convention proposed that California be allowed to submit names to the SBC to be used to present fill board positions. Isn’t it time to find a way for states to have a role in who represents them on the SBC committee on committees and other BOT?
Villa Rica
on Apr 20th, 2006
@ 10:47 pm:
Brother Art,
I have been taking it to the street pretty heavy since last Friday. I will be back on the home front by Sunday.
I have been out telling hungry beggers where to find THE BREAD.
Oh!! I had better make that very clear: I have been out telling hungry beggers where to find THE BREAD sent by the Father and made manifest by the Spirit.
I do not want to offend Brother Livingdust again. He will give me another dusting about my poor theology relating to the work of the Trinity concerning discipleship, evangelism, and the church.
I survived and am still a fed begger telling hungry beggers where to find THE BREAD.
Brother Art, I will be in contact over the weekend.
–looks like someone is filling up the WADE’IN pool–
I know, I know! that was really hokey, but what can you expect from a Frank Beamer fan.
BTW. Brother Livingdust, I am just funnin with you. So put your Greek text back up. Let’s be friends and just lob the NLT at each other.
Villa Rica
Jason Sampler
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 6:48 pm:
Art,
A ‘simple’ reading of the opening paragraph of the second update (not your words, but of the manual) seems to indicate that individual persons may call for the removal of a trustee. However, I read this as saying individuals have to abide by the same procedures as the EC or of the particular BoT requesting removal. With that being said, it seems the request to remove a trustee (or the entire board) at the convention w/o moving through each of these requirements would be ruled out of order.
Blessings.
art rogers
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 7:37 pm:
Yes, Jason, that was my reading as well – except that this document was incorporated to govern the actions of the BOT. I am unsure if it has the power to govern the SBC, even if it intends to do so.
I have asked the counsels office in Nashville for a “ruling.” I mentioned that I knew of at least one person who had stated that he intended to make such a motion from the floor, so it would behoove them to get ahead of it and make a clear decision ahead of time. I also said that I would post the results here at 12 Witnesses so that the appropriate information will be out.
Pastor Joe
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 9:00 pm:
Art: Thank you for the update. I am aware of at least 2 agency heads who threatened a trustee they did not like with a reccomendation for removal. It was asserted at the time that the SBC Bylaws gave each entity that right. As you so ably demonstrated, they do not.
I suspect that this was done when the agencies changed their charters to provide for “sole membership.” Strange thing is at the last minute the seminary presidents decided that sole membership was a bad idea.
I cannot be definitive without studying the bylaws and the charter of the SBC and the IMB. However, since the bylaws of the IMB appear to conflict with the bylaws of the SBC – they are probably not binding. I have grave doubts that a limitation on the rights of messengers to introduce motions given in the SBC bylaws can be obviated by a document of a subsidary (which since the SBC is the sole member, the agencies are de facto subsidiaries – smacks of connectionalism)
Jason Sampler
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 11:25 pm:
Pastor Joe,
Thanks for reminding me of ‘the thorn in my flesh’ – sole membership. You said that the seminary presidents realized it was a bad idea at the last minute. Actually, as best I understand it, 5 of the 6 all went along from the begining. It was only after Chuck Kelley began arguing against it that other presidents expressed dissatisfaction with the idea. The problem was that all of the entities besides NOBTS (and the EC, which was waiting for NOBTS) had already ammended their charters. It was not that they waited until the last minute; they had already agreed before they realized what they had done.
When Dr. Kelley put up a fight, he was all but silenced by Morris Chapman and the EC. Dr. Kelley was gracious in defeat, but was also (and this is my opinion) wounded by the way some/many attacked him as being disloyal. From an historical polity position, sole membership stinks (as you said: connenctionalism). From a legal standpoint (at least in Louisiana), the Roman Catholic Church has less control over its parish churches than the SBC has over NOBTS. Gotta love being Southern Baptist sometimes.
Blessings,
Jason Sampler