One of the signs that the SBC Annual Meeting is fast approaching is the announcement in Baptist Press of the nominees to serve on the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, the four denominational boards — International Mission Board, North American Mission Board, LifeWay Christian Resources, and GuideStone Financial Resources, — the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the six seminaries, and the Committee on Order of Business.
The announcement is usually pretty unnoteworthy. I must admit that I did not read through the entire list. But as far as I know, this year’s report is free of concerns. The report is released now because doing so is required by the convention bylaws. We don’t want any surprises in Phoenix. If you want to research each name in the report, you have plenty of time to do so before joining a sea of raised ballots to approve the report. If you do object to a name, you have time to express your concerns to the committee. If those concerns go unheeded, you can even offer a substitution from the floor of the convention when the report is presented.
But there is one issue that pops up every year related to this report. The report is not final. There will be changes. And the changes will not be announced until the morning that they are to be voted on. Unless you already know the names of those who have been added to the report, you have no opportunity to inform yourself before casting your ballot.
Our own Doug Hibbard made a motion last year asking the Executive Committee to explore the possibility of releasing the names of substitute nominees at least 7 days prior to the convention. The motion was referred to the Executive Committee. They contacted Doug for further information. But the EC ultimately decided that such a change is unnecessary.
Under normal circumstances it doesn’t matter. We trust the committee to put forward qualified nominees to fill the various trustee vacancies. The concern, however, is that the current system is ripe for foul play. Want to put forward a controversial nominee for a vacant trustee slot? Don’t announce it in Baptist Press a month and a half before the convention. Wait until the day the report is to be voted on and slip that name in as a substitute nominee. That gives those who might object little time to find out any information about the nominee or attempt to make a substitution from the floor of the convention.
The point is that there is a reason this report is being released now. It protects the integrity of the process. But all of that is undermined by the process we have for late additions. I realize that announcing the changes 7 days in advance would require the committee to get their ducks in a row a whole week sooner and that it may even result in a trustee slot remaining vacant for a year, but that seems like a small price to pay to protect the integrity of the process.
What say you?
I did read the whole list and nothing stood out to me as being cause for concern. But you’re right that the process for replacement nominees has been (ab)used before. Last year I contacted the committee chair ahead of time and expressed those same concerns. He said he would work to ensure nothing happened during the 2016 convention, and he delivered – there was nothing of concern in the replacement report.
The EC also took a good step last year in adding a notation to all names that were not included in the original BP report, which I hope will be the practice going forward, even if nothing else changes.
What Adam has written is accurate. I would add that there are always both advantages and disadvantages of any system, and that there are few (if any) systems that cannot be abused in some way.
One thing not mentioned and perhaps not recognized by Adam is the aspect of late-breaking disqualifications or withdrawals. Deaths, moral failures, terminal diagnoses, changes of mind by nominees, late disclosure of earlier unknown disqualifying or unacceptable aspects, lengthy searches for worthy or willing nominees in areas having few Southern Baptists, and other factors all sometimes force the committee to swap or add new nominees at the last minute. In such cases, the Committee on Nominations is forced to choose between leaving an area unrepresented on the board of one of our SBC entities or scrambling to find a suitable replacement. The committee has gone both ways in the past, depending on the circumstances.
The work of the Committee on Nominations is much more difficult than most imagine. I would argue that those who agree to serve as chairman of that body deserve our appreciation and respect for “sticking with it” after they discover how truly arduous the task is. If you doubt any of this, I encourage you to have a conversation with this, or any previous year’s chairman. (This year the chairman is Jim Richards from Texas, who has done a fine job).
When Doug’s motion was considered by the Executive Committee, all these and many other factors were discussed. I believe the EC members were generally sympathetic with the spirit of Doug’s motion. What was ultimately decided, however was to make the task of identifying the “late-breaking” nominees easier. Therefore, this year, and in all future years, the nominees not previously announced will be identified in the rather lengthy committee report with a special mark.
Though not completely preventive of abuse, perhaps this adjustment will help the messengers zero in more easily, and address any deficiencies or concerns from the microphone.
Thanks for the input, Augie. You’re right there’s no easy solution to this and I do appreciate the step you helped implement last year. Hopefully now that this issue has come to light, the committee will be vigilant to make sure no surprises occur in the future.
Clear identification works for me. Unless we someday see actual abusive issues, I don’t know that we really need to change the rules.
But the only way to draw “official” attention to the question to make a motion, so the motion was made. I appreciated the opportunity to submit supporting ideas for it to the EC.
Here’s an example, though not from the national level.
The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention gets to nominate trustees for the Texas Baptist Home for Children. During our annual meeting one year, about an hour before our Committee on Nominations was due to present its report, the head of that entity caught me in the meeting hall and said, “Bart, we have a problem. The SBTC has nominated ________ to serve on our board, but he and his wife just applied to adopt a child through TBHC. Our Bylaws state that, due to potential conflict of interest, no person adopting through TBHC can be a board member. I just spoke with ________ and, understandably, they choose the adoption over the board membership.”
By the time we located the committee chair, about 30 minutes remained. They didn’t know what to do. I had a church member who I thought would serve very well. I called her. Under pressure to give an immediate reply, she agreed to serve. The committee presented her and she was elected.
She has served as an officer of that board for several years now and has served well.
In my opinion, the number one MISperception of Southern Baptist operations that I had before being involved at all was the thought that anyone other than Christ had a grasp on it all. Usually you do best to favor chaos over conspiracy as an explanation for events that surprise you.
I think that this is better than leaving a vacancy or even what we might do in Arkansas–leave it blank and then the NomCom and Convention Pres appoint until the next convention (recess appointments). I’d rather have a last-minute voted on from the floor than increase the number of slots filled without a full vote.
Again, not because I think there is nefarious intent but just because of the potential for misperceptions and the chaos that ensues. Preventable chaos should be prevented–better your church member on the board and able to say she was elected by SBTC than someone being challenged as “illegitimate” since they were appointed the next week by NomCom, for example.
Not that you have those problems in SBTC, but some Baptists somewhere might. (I was a Georgia Baptist during the Shorter lawsuit, for example…sometimes we don’t get along very well.)
Mr. Boto, Thanks for reading and responding. I appreciate the EC’s consideration of the matter. And you’re right, I have little understanding of all the work that goes into the annual meeting and the preparation of the Committee on Nominations report. I appreciate all you and others do to make the convention a success each year.
I do understand why last minute substitute nominations are made. I also understand why many feel that it’s better to have a late minute substitution than a vacant trustee slot. I think that’s really where the disagreement is. I’d rather have the vacant trustee slot for a year.
But knowing that many (most?) do not share that preference, I think clearly identifying the substitute nominees in the program is an excellent step in the right direction.
Thanks again.
I would hope that we are not even in the same galaxy as having the last-minute switches be done intentionally, especially with nefarious intent.
I do think we run the risk of a last-minute replacement nominee being treated unfairly, especially in the world of social media chaos. Think how quickly a half-truth or an old story, long dealt with, could circulate on a nominee. Now, any one on the report now, there’s time to deal with it.
But let it be a swap to include, say, Brent Hobbs for the Committee on Dog Catchers. No one expected that, they expected Scott Gordon. The committee knows why–Scott is allergic to dogs, there’s an appropriate blanket ban on Yankees fans, whatever it may be–and Brent has nothing disqualifying. But a Scott supporter doesn’t know that. Quickly, someone dusts off an old situation where Brent owed someone a pie and didn’t deliver. He’s roundly criticized, there’s an argument on the floor, and Brent is replaced with someone else–all the while, Brent is made to look bad, the committee is made to look bad, and even the replacement candidate is made to look bad.
Except the truth is, Brent paid the debt with a cheesecake. The full truth wasn’t able to make the rounds, all because of the speed of social media up against official communications.
I know that there are needs for last-minute swaps, but the sooner such changes can be communicated, the better off everyone is for a fair treatment.
Openness in the process is generally better.
Agree, Scott, openness protects both ways, both the committee and the nominees.
Doug,
The most problematic thing you’ve mentioned thus far is the blanket ban on Yankee fans. Who else would be able to round up those Baltimore and Boston dogs?
Seriously though, I appreciate where you are coming from. We’ve not had problems like this in MBC…though we have had contested nominations in recent years. I’m praying the process will work and all who are appointed will serve well.
If we empower the Blue Jays to handle it, then it’s so much better and strengthens our international ties.
I think that the better takeaways here are:
1. Be aware that there are differences in the NomCom report from the first release (this time of year) to the annual meeting. I think there are some people who did not know that.
2. It is helpful for the NomCom to notate who those changes are. If there are questions about the “why,” then those should be asked from the floor or, if not too detailed, pre-emptively explained. (Perhaps even note ‘original nominee relocated, withdrew, or went to Heaven’ with the report, but not necessarily.) The interesting issue will arise when the answer is “well, we just decided to change….”
3. I’ve done state-level NomCom. Figure SBC NomCom is exponentially more difficult, so it’s a tough spot.
4. If you want to actually get people to think about/address an issue, you need to step up and make a motion at the SBC. Otherwise, it’s just chatter. Want something actually discussed, even if you yourself aren’t sure the right solution? Make a motion and give some reasoning for it, and then see what the results are. Just like with a business meeting at church: why don’t we do (Fill-in-the-blank)? Answer: because someone has to make a motion at a business meeting to do it.
So, the NomCom holds the flexibility that the Executive Committee feels is necessary for them to fulfill their responsibility. The push for a bit more transparency/clarity has shed a bit more light on the process and is going to help us have better information to work with at the annual meeting.
I’m happy with that.
Adam, I agree with you.
What’s disconcerting to me is everyone sees this blaring *potential* for, as you put it, “foul play” – yet, even after a reasonable motion was made, the executive committee appears unwilling to suggest a more accountable process for “last-minute nominations” – that is until something regrettable actually happens… I just don’t understand that mentality.
The current policy places a single messenger in the role of second-guessing a committee ( possibly for a very very good reason) from the floor with little to no chance of success… not to mention that convention floor rules prohibit that person from identifying the reason that a particular nominee should not be on the slate.
Mark my words – when something that appears fishy does happen most people and the powers that be will act all surprised that something like that could happen.
At the risk of getting sucked into an extremely time-consuming debate, I want to explain some things to perhaps help folks to “understand the mentality”. Yes, there is room for difference of opinion about these things, but this was thought through and came out the way it did not for any lack of interest, but because it seemed more reasonable to more EC members.
1. There is always a “glaring potential” for failure, no matter which way you go. As I said earlier, setting an earlier deadline for announcement after which no change can be made would, almost every year, leave territories without representation on boards. The Executive Committee saw this as being a more certain harm than the rarity of intentional misuse of the system.
2. I agree that a single messenger going up against an entire committee is daunting, but it has been done successfully when the reason to deny a trustee seat is “voiced well”. I said it that way because there have also been occasions when messengers have successfully challenged nominations on questionable or even false grounds (though the fact that the grounds were untrue may have not been known to the messenger).
3. Even if a deadline is imposed, I doubt there ever would be an attempt to obviate the ability messengers have to make motions of substitution. It should be obvious that when messengers pitch substitutions and succeed, their substituted nominee is more in the character of an “ambush” than a late-breaking committee nomination.
4. Admitted that things still surprise me, I promise never to “act” surprised that something like that could happen, but I guess that this promise is irrelevant, my not being one of the “powers that be.” (And to steal from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid . . . who ARE those guys??).
Perhaps a better word than “ambush” is the word “surprise,” because though skullduggery is often not present in substitution motions, the substituted nominee is still unknown about by most until only moments before the vote and is certainly not completely vetted for qualification.
I talked with Augie on the phone about this one day for a really long time, trying to hash out some ways the process could be improved. Every suggestion I made he had reasonable objections to. He’s right that any system has the potential to be abused. Each solution I’ve seen carries drawbacks, some significant. So while I know the current system isn’t perfect, I’m at a loss to propose one that substantially improves the situation.
I do think the rule about “only speaking for your candidate” is unfair to the convention and doesn’t allow them to make an informed decision. I understand the reasoning behind it and from a PR perspective, I get it. But the SBC is a deliberative body and there are times we’re not allowing appropriate deliberation to take place.
Brent –
I know of no such rule.
I HAVE heard moderators say such things, though. The rule I know about is a parliamentary one that addresses “pejorative comment.” It is not pejorative to say something like “While both my candidate and the committee’s nominee are qualified to serve, my candidate has been a life-long (64 years) Southern Baptist, and has served as the senior pastor of his 700 member church for 22 years, while the committee’s nominee is 33 years old, and has only served his present church as lead pastor for 2 years.”
It may be that such a substitute has a spouse serving as an IMB trustee , and the motion maker and messengers do not know that this fact disqualifies the older pastor. If the committee representative on the platform does not advise the body of the disqualification, the messengers could then elect a disqualified trustee (the substitute), who could not serve, which would then leave the territory without any rep at all.
But, again, the request of a moderator that messengers only speak on behalf of his nominee rather than against the other nominee is probably an inept attempt to avoid pejorative discourse.
A spot where using the wrong term ends up causing a problem. I can understand a rule where we don’t say “you can’t elect Brent, he’s a low-down, dirty, bushwhacker!”
But facts, verifiable facts, like the marriage cited, are what we really need.
Augie,
Thanks! No protracted debate here… I appreciate your input as you have truly and kindly shed much light on the process!
I am in agreement with Adam’s Analysis regarding where the crux of the disagreement lies… In that – I and he would rather see the spot remain vacant then the last minute nominees – but with your explanations I understand much better why many (perhaps most?) Don’t see it my way.
That’s Ok.
( y’all can be wrong if you want to) 😉
Seriously, thanks for shedding light on the discussion.
If we are in a time when there is a concern that unqualified, controversial, or objectionable nominee will be slipped in just before a vote then I doubt a sensible rule could be written to totally preclude the matter. Seems to me that the process works well and that because everyone gets news almost instantaneously, there are less shenanigans that there were a decade ago.
If there’s something that should be of concern I’m sure it will be tweeted to death.
Yes, William, I agree.
Your mention of something “slipped in just before” made me realize that I should have mentioned in my earlier post that the “special mark” indicating late-breaking nominees will appear in the Bulletin for the day in which the vote to approve nominees is taken. That Bulletin is usually available 7-9 hours before that vote.
The annual meeting app will also include the same information, so messengers not wishing to leave their hotel rooms at the crack of dawn to get a Bulletin would still be able to discern who the new nominees are by using their smart phone.
The deadline to get the material to the printer is usually about the midnight before. There have been times when we did not get the results of their deliberations until that late. Therefore, posting it to the app in the middle of the night would require staff to be up in the “wee” hours. We could do that, of course, but requiring it seems extreme. After all, we also have to stay awake on the platform during the next day’s proceedings!
I realize that that is not a very long lead time, but at least it allows some time for examination.
I don’t see any need for a change in the process. Unless one can site some examples where “foul play” has taken place the system is working fine. I find a few problems with Adam’s post.
1. First of all this committee is made up of brothers and sisters in Christ. They were chosen by representatives from their state conventions on the Committee on Committees. That committee was chosen by a president elected by the convention. Where does the foul play conspiracy start? With the Committee on Committees? With the Committee on Nominations? With the president? With the messengers? Why would we assume nefarious behavior?
2. There is a flaw in the thinking concerning this proposal. Adam wants the nominations that are revealed a week before the convention frozen so nominees can be researched and no substitute motions of any kind but especially a “controversial candidate” can be made in the last minute by the commitee. At the same time the convention and I assume Adam embraces the notion that one person not elected by the convention can make a motion to replace a nominee without the convention having a single minute to review the substitute nominee. The idea that an elected committee does not deserve the privilege to make a substitute motion but a single messenger that no one may have ever heard of does is illogical. To be consistent Adam would have to oppose any substitute motion because no vetting can take place.
3. “Controversial nominees” are mainly individuals a few people have problems with. Once I witnessed a substitute motion of a layman who was nominated. The reason why the substitute motion was made was the pastor of the church the layman attended was not a nice guy and he wrote some controversial things in his blog. Not a single word was said about the layman but only the pastor. If a church is in good standing then a layman from that church should be considered independently of his pastor. If this is not true then we need to do away with the layman/pastor ratio we attempt to keep. Anyway, this motion was over personalities and nothing to do with the layman.
4. There will be times that changes simply have to be made the last minute. Should Texas lose representation on the SWBTS’s board because the nominee from Texas moved out of state or had a heart attack at the last minute. Absolutely not.
Dean, I agree with you that there’s no silver bullet – no easy answer to how to improve the process, and it may be as good as it can possibly be now. If people would be above board and not misuse the process, I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with how it works, but as I said above, I can cite two examples in the last three years. I’m not going into specifics publicly because there are embarrassing details in each situation, but in both there are aspects that the committee or committee members acted in ways that I’m confident most SBs would disapprove.
If the problem is that a particular state’s member on the Nominating Committee has his individual replaced in the NC meeting by a person put forth by someone else on the committee who is carrying out the wishes of someone in the SBC who wants to exercise power and influence, then I don’t see any bylaw change that could fix that. It’s an internal matter of the Nominating Committee and has been going on since the beginning. If those who object feel strongly enough to name names and call out those pulling strings then a substitute nominee, the original individual, could be put forth on the convention floor as an amendment to the NC report.
Nominating Committee meetings are not public, since individuals must necessarily be discussed, but finding a way to put some light on this kind of manipulation would be healthy, IMO. I don’t know how common this is. Perhaps my colleagues who have served on state or SBC Nominating Committees could say.
If we got into a practice where many amendments were offered from the floor to the NC report that would be fairly corrosive.
When the committee on nominations meet in Nashville members from each state convention are the only ones who put forth nominees for that state’s spots on boards. If one of those nominees or current trustees happen to resign between the Nashville meeting and the convention then a sub-committee names a replacement.
There are at-large spots on the trustee boards. Those can be a free-for-all when they come open. If New Mexico had a person on a board in an at-large position they will name a replacement and then other states may offer a different replacement. However, I don’t believe representstives from Alabama offering a substitute to an Arkansas’ nominee can happen.
I have seen a member of the committee on nominations tell members from a different state that they need to reconsider a nominee because something had come out on their nominee the Sunday before the meeting. They asked for a few minutes to investigate, came back to the meeting and offered a different nominee but no other state could recommend a name.
That’s good to know. Is it a formal bylaw or custom? I’d be curious to know if the example put up earlier (but taken down by request) was consistent with this.