bylaws and byways—law and anarchy at gts

8/9/2019 Bylaws and BywaysLaw and Anarchy at GTS

1/6

Bylaws and Byways: Law and Anarchy at General Theological Seminary

As a current ThD student at The General Theological Seminary, perhaps the mosttroubling piece of information to have been disseminated in the slew of blog posts,

comments, tweets, and emails that have piled up since the beginning of the ensuing crisis

at GTS for me has been the Facebook post of Rev. Ellen Tillotson, a GTS board member(and priest in the church). Rev. Tillotson alleged that faculty members had knowinglyplanned their actions for many months in an attempt to undermine the authority of the

Dean and President and force the boards hand by strong-arm tactics. These allegationshave been addressed quite astutely by GTS professor Rev. Dr. Amy Lamborn in a

comment to Tillotsons post at the Episcopal Caf. However, Tillotson makes additionalclaims also at work in the Board of Trustees Sept. 30, 2014 letter that thus far have not

been addressed. They pertain to the numbered list of requests in the Facultys first letter(Sept. 17, 2014). After providing her own paraphrases of each of the requests, Tillotson

says, Numbers three and five aren't bad ideas at that. The others are simply impossible.Impossible. Numbers three and five harmlessly request for someone external to the

institution to be made available for pastoral support of students, staff, and faculty, and forthe hiring of a fundraiser, respectively.

In what follows I briefly want to touch on those faculty requests Tillotson callssimply impossible and that the Boards letter (Sept. 30) says are at odds with the

governing structure of the institution. I will quote from each of the three remainingrequests and work through all publicly promulgated bylaws of both the Board and of the

2012Faculty Handbook (FH) as well as the 2012 Community Life Handbook (CLH). Weshould make note from the start that Tillotson and other board members have consistently

referred in their communications to the current bylaws, which apparently were revisedin May. However, these revisions have never been promulgated, despite the fact that they

have been invoked against the Facultys requests and affect the entire community: the

Board, the Faculty, and students. Canon Elizabeth Geitz, a member of ExecutiveCommittee and Chair of the Governance/Trustee Committee, stated in an email today sheoversaw these changes and redirected my request for them to the Chancellor of the

Board. What her communication makes clear is that these revised bylaws have neverbeen communicated either to the Faculty or to the student body. This is particularly

troubling, since, as Tillotson recently confirmed, the four student seats on the board wererecently removed by revisions to the bylawsagain, revisions not publicly known.

On to the Facultys remaining three requests:

Number 1: The immediate appointment of a committee of Board members, to be

determined by the faculty [so they know its not rigged against their concerns no

doubt!], to meet with us to discuss conditions necessary for moving forward as an

institution during the October meeting of the Board of Trustees.

1995 Constitution and Statutes of GTS(hereafter C&S), II.7: Other Committees.

The Board or the Executive Committee may appoint from time to time such otherStanding, Special Committees or Ad Hoc Committees as either of them may deem

desirable, with such duties, membership, and terms of office as shall be stated in


2/6

such appointment. A majority of each Standing Committee shall be members ofthe Board.

The Board may establish an ad hoc committee consisting of various members, provided

that its majority are members of the Board. Even non-board members and faculty may be

a part of such a committee. Nothing prohibits consultation with faculty about themembership of these committees, and thus nothing in the governance structure of theseminary or its publicly accessible bylaws prevents this request from being met.

Number 2: That action be taken to empower the faculty with immediate oversight

over the curriculum, schedule, worship, and overall program of formation for the

seminary. This should also involve the appointment of a faculty council who will

implement a pattern of worship consistent with the Book of Common Prayer

(1979).

a. Curriculum: Subject to policies of the Board of Trustees, the ordering of all

details of the curriculum shall be by action of the Dean and Faculty, subject to theprovisions of the Constitution and these Bylaws (C&S, article VI).

Two points must be made here.

1. Though the bylaws empower the faculty to determine and order alldetails of thecurriculum with the Dean, the issue at stake is that the Dean has been imposing

requirements upon the curriculum without collaboration with the faculty. Thisparticular bylaw, however, has longstanding historical precedent: collaboration

has been written into the very law of the seminary with regard to curriculum formany, many years. It is thus precisely the bylaws of the institution that have been

violated by the Deans non-collaborative leadership, including oversight of thecurriculum, producing a hostile work environment.

2. According to the bylaws, from the very institution of GTS, the Dean has beenunderstood to be a member of the Faculty and so collaborative efforts between

Dean and Faculty with respect to ordering the curriculum are expected. (See theAct of Incorporationand the corresponding first C&S, April 5, 1822: The title of

Dean shall be held in annual rotation by the resident Professors, beginning withthe first appointed, and proceeding in the order of seniority, VI.6.2.) However,

when the Dean is not a qualified person to teach, has no experience in theologicaleducation, and has not earned the advanced degrees necessary to teach and lead

within an institution of higher theological learning, there is a real question

whether this bylaw together with a Dean who is not only a member of the Facultybut one who exercises any form of control over the curriculum breaches ATSstandards: The faculty who teach in a program on a continuing basis shall

exercise responsibility for the planning, design, and oversight of its curriculum(Association of Theological Schools, General Institutional Standards, 5.1.4;

hereafterATS; cf.ATS7.3.3). Though the Dean is a member of the Facultyaccording to GTS bylaws, he is not one who teach[es] in a program on a

continuing basis and so has no place exercising responsibility for the planning,


3/6

design, and oversight of GTSs curriculum. This particular bylaw, in otherwords, can only maintain accrediting standards when the Dean who is a member

of the Faculty is also a qualified instructor/professor who teaches on a regularbasis. This has not been the case under the leadership of Dean Dunkle, who has

arrogated to himself via the protection of the bylaws responsibilities he simply

cannot perform.

b. Schedule:

There is nothing specific pertaining to the schedule, either of classes, programs, orworship, in the bylaws. However, we should note that many if not all faculty members

were so constrained by increasing pressure from the Dean to be present at worship in thechapel and at midday lunches at the refectory (to the point that the Dean was counting

how many times faculty members were present and absent in an obvious display ofintimidation and coercion) that the Deans tight control of the schedule was interfering

with classes, professional development, and the simple ability of faculty members to gettheir jobs done. One particular faculty member told me that, after sitting on committees

and sub-committees, attending morning prayer scheduled at a time that literallyinterrupted the first class of the day and caused innumerable delays in the schedules ofthose classes, along with Eucharists and evensongsin addition to all of the other normal

requirements attendant to professors for teaching, advising, and formationthere wasliterally 0% time remaining for ongoing professional development in terms of research,

publication, attending conferences, and so on. The Deans control over the schedule thusinterrupted and hijacked the classroom and rejects the demand and expectation for faculty

members ongoing professional development, which is a requirement not only of thebylaws of the seminary and of the FH, but of ATS accreditation requirements as well(see

especiallyFH, Other Policies Established by the Board of Trustees, C4, p. 15).

It should also be noted that in previous C&Ss the following language was used: Allmembers of the Faculty are expected to attend the scheduled Seminary chapel services to

the extent that their schedules permit (2.8.1, C&S1987).

c. Worship: All religious services shall be under the charge and direction of the

Dean (C&S III.2); It is expected that all full time faculty members, as well asall students, will participate in the regular worship life of the Seminarycommunity and will assume responsibility for the planning and leadershipof

worship (FH, Other Policies, C6, p. 16).

While religious services have been under the charge and direction of the Deanbasically from the beginning of GTSs history, how charge and direction has been

understood has developed over the years. Since the adoption of the 1979Book ofCommon Prayerthe Dean, who has almost always been selected from among the Faculty

on rotation rather than being someone with no experience in theological education, has


4/6

been pressed to collaborate with others, including both faculty and staff, in the planningand leadership of worship as laid out in theFH.

If we compare the student CLH, however, we also see that the Dean does not possess the

immediate oversight of the designof the liturgy, nor of the usage of space (including

whether to remove pews), nor of the Guild of Sacristans (nor its Chief Sacristan), nor orthe training of liturgical leadersall of these according to the CLH(rev. 2012, the onlycopy currently present on GTSs website) are under the charge of the Liturgics professor

(http://resource.gts.edu/images/Documents/CommunityLifeHandbook%209%2017%2014%20revision.pdf, p. 12; note that the name of the .pdf is 09 17 2014 revision). In

addition, the CLHstates that the Dean, the Liturgics Professor, the Church MusicProfessor, and the Professor of Preaching will constitute the Worship Leaders Guild,

which, together with the Worship Committee made up of representatives drawn fromall sectors of the seminary community, offers advice and counsel to the Dean on all

matters related to worship (ibid.). Not only has the Professor of Liturgics not beenallowed to design the liturgy, or be responsible for the usage of space and oversight of the

Guild of Sacristans, under the leadership of Dean Dunkle, but the Worship LeadersGuild and Worship Committee both vanished upon his taking up of his duties.

Finally, note carefully that the CLHstill produces the old chapel schedule that was

subsequently superseded by Dean Dunkle in Easter term 2014, despite unanimousobjection to this new (and now current) schedule by the entire faculty as well as students

(see, e.g., the letter from students to the Dean, February 7, 2014, sent first by Fr. WilliamOgburn to Executive Committee board member Robert Wright, and then posted here:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/seminaries/a_gts_trustee_reflects_on_the.html#comment-51648).

d. Program of Formation:

The only recent version of the bylaws I could find (and purely by accident, it would

seem) is a set of proposed amendments for consideration at the boards meeting of May1213, 2014which means, I do not know which of these were accepted/ratified. The

new Article I.9 of the bylaws proposes that the following roles be assigned: The Boardof Trustees shall set policy for the Seminary. The Dean shall administer and implement

that policy. The Faculty shall educate and form future ordained and lay leaders of thechurch, subject to the policies of the Board and direction of the Dean. Now, it is

important to point out that this is a brand new revisionagain, this is nota publicly

promulgated document!and essentially undermines the collaborative vision of previousbylaws between Faculty and Dean. Nonetheless, note that formation is still under thecharge of the Faculty, so this particular request is not in fact impossible according to the

current governing structures of the seminarys bylaws.

e. Faculty Worship Council: See above on worship and the details of the CLH,which envisions a Worship Leaders Guild, a collaborative group of Dean and


5/6

representative Faculty, which works together with a worship committee made upof members of the entire community. Once again, this is not an outlandish claim,

or an impossible one, according to currently publicly promulgated bylaws anddocuments of the seminary.

Number 4: Steps be immediately taken to restore and ensure that the faculty

members be afforded due process in connection with all appointments, worship and

formation, and the implementation of our curriculum. The Academic Dean should

be empowered with the authority necessary to implement properly the academic

program, consistent with the standards of the Association of Theological Schools

(ATS) and our own recent Declaration of the Way of Wisdom.

Current publicly promulgated bylaws of the institution provide faculty members with

precisely the due process they request here. Moreover, ATS standards require faculty tobe afforded such due process (seeATS7.3.3.1; the bylaws, theFH, and the CLHof the

seminary also expect faculty to be afforded such as well).

It should be noted that Tillotsons rephrasing of this particular request misconstrues it asa demand placing the authority for the implementation of theprogram of the seminaryin

the office of the Academic Dean. That is not in fact what it requests: it requests that theAcademic Dean be empowered with the authority necessary to implement properly the

academicprogram, that is, that the Academic Dean be allowed to do (in this case) herjob. Nothing more. And it is specifically making this request in conformitywith ATS

standards. Tillotsons rephrasing (really, misquoting) is in fact a misconstrual. Moreover,this requests that steps be taken to restorefaculty members due process for these

important aspects of their leadership within the seminary that were taken away from them

when the Dean was lodged with unprecedented powers over what never had been theDeans duties in the past at this seminary (at least not with one as unqualifiedacademically as the current Dean).

One other consideration:

The CLH specifically addresses situations in which the Dean is accused of harassment,

whether against faculty, staff, or students. The procedure that the CLHstipulates in suchinstances is that such accusations be brought to the immediate attention of the chair of the

Boardin this case, Bishop Mark Sisk (CLH, 59)who is then to follow the proceduresset out in the preceding paragraphs of the CLH. This is precisely what the Faculty did.

They thus followed the set policies and procedures of the school, which also includes anon-retaliation policy for anymember who brings accusations to light. Indeed, there is a

whistleblower policy, which notably includes the following: No person at the Seminarywho in good faith reports a possible violation shall suffer harassment, retaliation or

adverse employment consequence. A trustee, officer or employee who retaliates againstsomeone who has reported a possible violation in good faith is subject to discipline up to

and including termination of employment. This Policy is intended to encourage andenable employees and others to raise serious concerns within the Seminary without fear


6/6

of reprisal and prior to seeking resolution outside the Seminary (ibid., 62). Because theCLHalso specifies that the accused should be prevented from having on-on-one contact

with the accused (ibid., 58), especially in a situation with as many allegations and partiesinvolved as the present dispute, it would only stand to reason that the Dean should have

been removed temporarily according to the CLHsown procedures. At the very least he

should have been removed from chapel, faculty meetings, as well as any private (orcasual/extemporaneous) meetings with accusers as soon as allegations were lodged withthe Chair of the Board. And none of this of course even addresses the question of Title IV

procedures.

Conclusion:

The Faculty thus acted in every instance in consonance with the promulgated documentsgoverning the life of the seminary, documents Executive Committee, however, has not

followed. It was this situation that precipitated the work stoppage. All of this leaves us

with a very unsettling question: If in fact the Facultys requests in their Sept. 17 letter do

not stand at odds with thepublicly promulgatedlaws of The General TheologicalSeminary of The Episcopal Churchas I believe I have shownhow can they (or any

other member of the GTS community) be held accountable to bylaws notpubliclypromulgated? In a recent meeting at GTS between students and Ellen Tillotson (along

with two other board members), I asked directly about the issue of the bylaws. When I

mentioned one example among the faculty requests, Tillotsons response to me was, I

understand that you do not understand the bylaws.Heres the rub. How can Iknow

anything else of the bylaws when they have not been publicly promulgated? Can the

Faculty be beholden to bylaws that were never communicated to them? Can indeed anentire institution be held hostage by laws that are in truth anarchic? All the more, what

does this say about the nature of a Board of Trustees that operates in this manner? The

profoundly disturbing truth of this crisis is that the Faculty and students all deserve muchbetter answers than the current administration has been providing. Regardless, it has beenclear for some time that we have all deserved better leadership than either the Dean or

Executive Committee, with Bishop Mark Sisk at the helm, are capable of providing.

J. David Belcher is a public theologian and a ThD student in liturgy at GeneralTheological Seminary.