Part 8 - The Disposition of my 2013 LBC Motion and My Response

     In November of 2013 I offered a motion on the floor of the LBC meeting in Alexandria that addressed the contradiction that exists between the Louisiana Baptist Convention By-Laws and the Charters of the four LBC entities that are governed by Boards of Trustees (specifically as it relates to Louisiana College). Please go HERE to take a look at that rather lengthy motion. The motion was sent to the LBC Administrative Committee for consideration. In May of 2014 they passed along their recommendation to the Executive Board to “decline any action” on my motion. That recommendation was adopted.

I had hoped for a simple ruling… I wanted to see:

1) Clarification and enforcement that according to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Louisiana Baptist Convention, the Executive Director of the LBC is not permitted a position on any of the four LBC Boards of Trustees,

2) The Convention respectfully requests the four LBC entities to appropriately amend their Charters as to not contradict the LBC Bylaws, (in much the same way the SBC requested charter changes of its entities regarding the sole membership issue) and

3) From this time forward the Executive Director interact with those entities as an invited guest while maintaining a friendly and collegial relationship with those entities.

There are some who charge my motion was a personal attack against the current Executive Director. I continue to insist that this was never the case and have shown through my research that this is simply a constitutional issue. While serving as a member of the LC Board of Trustees I first noted what would be considered external influence on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Louisiana College in September of 2012. I noted continued exertion of undue influence in numerous subsequent meetings. However, in an effort keep my concern from looking like a “personal agenda” I specifically (and deliberately) did not identify any particular untoward action in my motion, nor did I charge the Executive Director with undue/external influence because my concern was primarily with the office and the corresponding articles in the LBC guiding documents and not with the individual as a person. Rather, I simply pointed to what I was afraid might come about (which of course, now has come to fruition) if the convention continued to ignore this issue and if SACS noted a similar concern.

     My motion was passed along to the Administrative Committee of the LBC. After not receiving an invitation to address the group regarding my motion, I sent a formal request to be allowed to speak. I was permitted to speak for a very short time (one person who timed me suggested I was in the room for 5 minutes). It should be noted that the Executive Director was in the room (along with a few other convention employees) with the Administrative Committee for a long time before I entered, he was in attendance while I addressed the group and he was in attendance for an extended amount of time after I left. Also of note is that I asked a number of questions to the group (which no one answered) and although I gave them an opportunity to ask questions, no one did. Wouldn’t it have been judicious to at least dismiss the Executive Director for that short amount of time so that at minimum some sort of investigative query could have been conducted and specific questions asked of the one who was lodging the concern? Of course, that did not take place and the group did not interview me and ask questions in order to help clarify my position.

     It is clear to me that to some degree the fate of my motion had already been decided. After the group recessed there was a lunch and then it was on to the full Executive Board plenary session. The following is what was presented from the Administrative Committee to the full board regarding the disposition of my motion:

(26:05) The last recommendation that we have is to move that the Executive Board of the Louisiana Baptist Convention declines to recommend any action regarding the motion made by Jay Adkins messenger of First Westwego referred to it from the 2013 LBC annual meeting for the following reasons:

     Number One: the charters of LBC boards are not in conflict with the LBC governing documents by naming the Executive Director of the LBC as a member of the respective boards, those charters being explicitly authorized to identify those who compose the members of the board to wit… this is a quote from the LBC bylaw Article Three, Section One… “that the composition and duties of the boards of trustees of agencies and institutions of this convention shall be clearly set forth in the convention resolutions authorizing their establishment and included subsequently in appropriate form in their respective corporate charters. All corporate charters and amendments thereto shall be expressly approved by the convention or by the Executive Board of the convention.” Article Three, Section One gives us an explicit exception in the prohibition of salaried employees of the convention serving on committees or boards of the convention… see LBC bylaw Article Four,  Section Ten… Which reads “No salaried employee of this convention and its boards and committees shall be eligible for election as a voting member of the boards or committees of this convention except as provided in the constitution of the Convention or these bylaws.”

     Reason number Two: Is the provision in the Louisiana College charter naming the LBC Executive Director as a member of the college Board of Trustees is not evidence of undue influence under the rules of this convention or of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges… the college’s accrediting body. Both the Louisiana College Board of Trustees and the Louisiana Baptist Convention, as the sole member of the college corporation, have approved this provision. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges has not cited this provision as a violation at LC or at other Southern Baptist Schools with the same provision.

     Reason number Three: The recent 2006 edition of the Executive Director of the LC Board of Trustees, a practice common to other state convention schools is particularly useful to the LBC in light of the numerous actions in the last 25 years of Baptist College Boards defeating the rights of their parent conventions and going independent, the process of the LBC Executive Director as a voting member of the board serves as a strong reminder that the board serves at the pleasure of the LBC.”

Although I assumed there would be a dismissal of my motion I cannot tell you how utterly befuddled I was when I heard this particular response. This meeting took place in May of 2014 and I intended to write a response rather quickly especially considering some upcoming events (SACS was coming to visit the LC campus soon and I knew that they would be issuing a report some time in June. I also knew I had a family vacation to Europe coming up on which I wanted to focus). I was so frustrated by the Executive Board’s response to my motion that I felt pressed to do something that I had prayerfully considered doing in the past but had yet not done… something I was so ready to do that I had already printed out the paper work and spent hours transcribing the audio of a number of board meetings. You see, back in the early spring of 2013 I made a very informal and anonymous call to SACS in order to find out how someone goes about submitting an official complaint to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. I found out that they only take transcriptions of recorded events and will not receive audio files as submissions. Further, and more importantly, I was told that before someone submits an official complaint they should seek to exhaust every avenue of opportunity in order to bring attention to and rectify the disconcerting situation. That is exactly what I have been doing. I sought resolution with the LC Executive Board, I tried with the full LC Board, I tried on the floor of the Convention, I tried with the Administrative Committee and then finally I tried (although wasn’t given a hearing) with the full LBC Executive Board. Before I lodged an official complaint I was told to exhaust every avenue… and that is what I have done.

     Now are you ready for the big reveal? Friends, to this day I have NOT made an official complaint to SACS. Yes, I know… that is probably shocking. I’m certain that there are those who think that I was the one that sent info to SACS which caused the 3.2.4 Comprehensive Standard charge against the Executive Director for external influence… but the funny thing is… it wasn’t me. Don’t get me wrong. I told people that I was going to do such a thing because I had intended to do so… but you see I was trying to do the right thing. I was trying to “exhaust every avenue” before making such a complaint.

     At the end of the May Executive Board meeting I had resolved to finally make that official complaint to SACS about this issue since I assumed I had finally come to exhaust all avenues. I made a hurried attempt to get things in order and then I prayed. I know that sounds like a “Sunday school” thing but it is important that you know that I have always done that before posting anything regarding this whole situation. You might note that I normally wait a week or so before I post something about which I have experienced and over which I have had deep concerns. I spend that time praying, writing, editing and then praying again. I do not post rashly but deliberately and with careful words. As I rushed to get things in order to send to SACS I spent some time praying and, although I’m not one of those guys that says God “speaks” to him and have the capacity to divine and then dispense a holy curse upon someone, I do believe God directed me to wait. I was uncomfortable with that direction but it was as if he said to me, just be patient. So I sat the stuff aside and unplugged for the summer (see HERE for that story). I’m glad I did since now I can say that SACS identified the problem I have called attention to without my pushing the subject. External influence on the part of the Executive Director has been cited by SACS and LC has, in part and along with other issues, been punished for it. Keep all this in mind while you read the rest of my post.


Now to address the LBC Administrative Committee’s startlingly deficient response to my motion.

     Randy Johnson, chair of the Administrative Committee, stood to give three reasons as to why the Executive Board should recommend declining any action regarding my motion. Of the three reasons given the first is an unfortunate display of bad hermeneutics, the second has arguably been nullified by the SACS findings, and the third is a complex amalgamation of logical fallacies including parts of (1) appeal to emotion, (2) appeal to authority, (3) appeal to consequences, (4) red herring & (5) false dilemma. Let me explain.

     The first reason given to decline recommending action on my motion was “the charters of LBC boards are not in conflict with the LBC governing documents by naming the Executive Director of the LBC as a member of the respective boards, those charters being explicitly authorized to identify those who compose the members of the board to wit… this is a quote from the LBC bylaw Article Three, Section One… “that the composition and duties of the boards of trustees of agencies and institutions of this convention shall be clearly set fourth in the convention resolutions authorizing their establishment and included subsequently in appropriate form in their respective corporate charters. All corporate charters and amendments thereto shall be expressly approved by the convention or by the Executive Board of the convention.”

     There seems to be two primary hermeneutical faux pas happening here. First, there is an apparent suggestion that Article 3, Section 1 allows the individual entities to appoint whomsoever they choose to their boards as long as these appointments are “expressly approved by the convention…” This could not be further from the truth. I have noted HERE that according to Roberts Rules of Order, NR (10th ed.), p. 332, 15-8:

Motions that conflict with the corporate charter, constitution or bylaws of a society...  are out of order, and if any motion of this kind is adopted, it is null and void.

Thus, even if the LBC ratified the charter changes of the convention entities those changes would be null and void if they “conflict with the constitution or bylaws” of the convention. There IS such a conflict as noted in Article 4, Section 10 which says,

“No salaried employee of this Convention and its boards and committees shall be eligible for election as a voting member of the boards or committees of this convention except as provided in the constitution of the Convention or these bylaws.”

If the bylaws state that no salaried employee can serve (or be elected to) boards or committees of the convention, then the action of the convention ratifying entity charter changes which makes an allowance for such a seat is a direct violation of the bylaws and RONR necessarily applies. Thus, the aforementioned changes are null and void. Clearly this response to my resolution is deficient.

     Another hermeneutical problem is to suggest that Article 3, Section 1 is the “exception clause” which nullifies Article 4, Section 10’s prohibition of salaried employees serving on boards or committees (specifically for the Executive Director). Now think through this with me. If 3.1 is indeed an exception clause then it is an exception clause for ANY salaried employee. Therefore, any salaried employee would technically be eligible to serve on committees or boards of the convention. If that is the case, why the prohibition from 4.10 in the first place? Let me say that a different way… the rule states that no employee can serve (be elected) unless there is a provision “in the constitution of the Convention or these bylaws.” The exception then should be a specific one. In other words, if there is an exception, it must NOT be a blanket one, it would name who would be allowed to serve. This sort of exception is found in the applicable article for the Executive Director in Article 3, Section 9 where it does identify a particular exception for the Executive Director where he is allowed to serve as “a member and secretary of all standing committees of the Convention.” It further notes that the Executive Director can call on members of his Executive Board staff (salaried employees) to assist him in that task. THERE, my friends, is an example of an exception clause and it is there that the Executive Director is allowed a seat on the standing committees and NOT on the Boards of Trustees. The argument from the Administrative Committee is simply a case of bad hermeneutics or at least a dereliction in due diligence to rightly interpret the bylaws.

     The second reason given for the dismissal of my motion is that “the provision in the Louisiana College charter naming the LBC executive Director as a member of the college Board of Trustees is not evidence of undue influence under the rules of this convention or of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges… the college’s accrediting body. Both the Louisiana College Board of Trustees and the Louisiana Baptist Convention, as the sole member of the college corporation, have approved this provision. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges has not cited this provision as a violation at LC or at other Southern Baptist Schools with the same provision.”

     Boy isn’t this interesting? Now it is absolutely true that SACS has no rule about Baptist State Executive Directors being ineligible for serving on Baptist College Boards of Trustees. But that wasn’t what my motion was about. My motion was about the possibility of the exertion of undue or external influence upon Louisiana College by the Executive Director. What has now been cited by SACS is that the Executive Director has indeed exhibited external influence and LC is now on probation, in part, because of the Executive Director’s actions. Therefore, this second reason why the Administrative Committee would dismiss my motion does not apply. Had the Executive Director not been in a voting member on the LC board of trustees then he would not have been in executive session meetings where I have recorded evidence of more egregious displays of external/undue influence than even SACS knows about at this point (since I have yet to make an official complaint). Spend some time in thought about that subject.

     Finally, and the weakest argument given as to why my motion should be dismissed is because having the Executive Director serving on the Boards of Trustees “is particularly useful to the LBC in light of the numerous actions in the last 25 years of Baptist College Boards defeating the rights of their parent conventions and going independent, the process of the LBC Executive Director as a voting member of the Board serves as a strong reminder that the board serves at the pleasure of the LBC.”

     Where do I begin? I suppose I’ll begin with the most basic of responses then move on to the fallacious rhetoric. Louisiana College and the other LBC entities have changed their charter to reflect that the LBC is the SOLE MEMBER of the entity. Friend, there is no way LC could “defeat the rights of the parent convention by going independent” regardless of whether or not the Executive Director is on the board. It simply cannot happen. The presence of any state Executive Director on any Board of Trustees for any state convention entity does absolutely nothing to “better-secure” the convention to an entity whose sole member is the convention itself. It is redundant, superfluous, and completely unnecessary. Furthermore, I take umbrage with the attempt to use logical fallacies (such as (1) appeal to emotion - the fear of past experiences of conventions who’ve lost colleges (2) appeal to authority - authority of the LBC and other schools, (3) appeal to consequences - having a school go rogue, (4) red herring and (5) a false dilemma - suggesting that the Executive Director’s place on the board would do anything to tighten up the link between the school and the convention when sole membership makes that connection legally binding) to argue that my motion should be declined. This response is not only embarrassing for whomever wrote this section it again points out that those who drafted this response to my motion do not understand the convention-entity relationship. Further, an undergrad philosophy student could have picked apart this section after one semester in class.

     Since the time I first publicly spoke on this subject I have been very careful to not “politic.” I have not made phone calls to stir the pot, I’ve not encouraged people to gather in small groups and I’ve purposely steered away from meetings around the state regarding concerns. I’ve simply spoken my piece, tried to present the truth and answered questions when asked. With that said, I am very much looking forward to addressing the response to my motion on the floor of the convention meeting in Lafayette this November. I now would like to encourage everyone interested to pass along this blog post, make phone calls, spread the word and then come to the convention and make your voice heard on any subject over which you have concerns. The only way things change is when those with courageous voices, a consistent vote and CP value speak up and make their concerns known. Be sure to have your church select you a messenger and join us for the LBC at First Baptist Church of Lafayette on November 10-11. I see this meeting as the final "avenue to exhaust" (for me personally and for my responsibility as a Louisiana Baptist) before I submit an official complaint to SACS. I hope the convention will do something that will remove the necessity of a complaint submission and a public release of information and audio recordings which validate the very concerns I have tried to tactfully address over the last 2 years.

Boiled down summary:
1) I have not yet submitted an official complaint to SACS and LC is now on probation. If I do submit a complaint it will further validate the SACS concerns.
2) The response to my motion from the LBC Admin Comm is deficient and does not apply and I will point that out at the convention.
3) If there is no change I will be forced to submit an official complaint to SACS and then will for the first time publicly disclose information as well as audio recordings of external and undue influence of the Executive Director on the Board of Trustees of Louisiana College.


in veritate et gratia,
Jay Adkins