I heard a story recently that infuriated me. A friend was speaking to a trustee of one of our institutions who told him that one of the things he liked about being a trustee was that he didn’t have to listen to anyone else but the other trustees. And, he said, his only job was to help the president of the entity enact his agenda. Wow.
I wrote an article the other day opposing the idea of publishing entity president’s salaries and advocating that we “trust the trustees.” Some people seem to have a very different idea of what it means to trust the trustees than I do, evidently. What I mean is most certainly not what that trustee thinks.
“Trust the Trustees” Does NOT Mean…
1. That trustees are always right.
I disagree with trustees often. I think they’ve made some serious mistakes. They are not always right.
2. That it is wrong to question or speak in opposition to trustees.
Anyone who tells you that speaking against the actions of the trustees of an institution is unChristian, unBaptist, or inappropriate is offbase. And the trustee who told my friend that since he was a trustee he didn’t have to listen to anyone else is so offbase that if my friend revealed his name I’d consider publicly humiliating him!
Now, the way I speak against the trustees may wrong. Reporting gossip is wrong. Speaking slanderously against their character is wrong. But stating my opposition to their actions is not only not wrong; it is right. It is the way our system works.
3. That there is no accountability for trustees.
Someone failed the trustee my friend spoke to above. He was not instructed on his duties. He is not being a good trustee when he refuses to listen to others.
There is accountability for trustees. They are not accountable to the shifting winds of popular opinion, but they should listen to what Baptists have to say. They are accountable to our confessional statement, the guiding documents of the convention and the institution, and to the purposes of our convention. They hold that institution in trust for us.
“Trust the Trustees” DOES mean…
1. That I recognize that trustees often have more information than I have about a situation.
When stuff happens at trustee meetings, we opine, as is our right and as is right. But we also need to realize that the men and women making those decisions have access to information that we do not. I have to admit that my judgment may be incomplete because my information is incomplete.
We should express our opinions, but trusting the trustees means having the humility to realize that our trustees often know things we don’t because they have information we don’t.
2. That I recognize that there’s a time for me to have my say and a time for me to join the team.
The last time there was a new IMB president being voted on, Bart Barber wrote an article here expressing his strong belief that David Platt was not the right man. It was a reasoned and thoughtful post that forcefully argued that the trustees should vote no on the Platt candidacy.
The next day (I think it was) the trustees approved Platt as president of the IMB and Bart followed up the first post with one that expressed his intent to fully support the new president. From my observation, he did that. When the financial troubles were revealed and Platt dealt with them, Bart did not second guess or snipe.
That should not be unusual.
I have expressed my strong conviction that the IMB president should be someone with field experience. From talking to missionaries, this is no small issue. I believe the IMB trustees will be making a serious mistake if they hire a president without field experience.
What if they do?
I will push my church to give generously to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, we will continue giving 10% to missions through the CP, and I will continue, when my health allows, my work with the UUPG in Senegal. I will not harp, rail, or seek to undercut the IMB president in any way.
Trusting the trustees means I have my say but I don’t always get my way. We aren’t good at that. We are often not content with voicing our opinions. We demand our voices be obeyed. It often doesn’t happen.
3. That I recognize that trustees are fallible, as am I.
They aren’t perfect. They make mistakes. So do I. Developing a spirit of grace and refraining from a critical spirit are important. They will make mistakes as I have.
4. That I recognize that honorable trustees can disagree with me.
Just because I disagree with the trustees does not make me right and them wrong. They may be right and I am wrong. Hard to imagine, right?
5. That weaponized criticism is out of bounds.
We have weaponized disagreement today. If you do not see things the way I see them, you must be a lowdown skunk. When we question the Christian commitment of someone who disagrees with us, we’ve crossed a line.
Trusting the trustees implies that I can still support an institution even if the trustees do something with which I disagree. I can still believe the best about men and women who take an action I would not take.
The kinds of personal attacks, ridicule, and vituperative words that some have resorted to is simply not acceptable.
Further Thoughts
1. There are trustees who evidently do not understand their work. A trustee does not work for the president, but for the convention. They are to hold the president accountable on behalf of the convention. They should support their presidents as possible, but they should also stand up to them and hold the line on fiscal matters, theological matters, and spiritual matters.
They need to be worthy of trust.
2. The secrecy that some trustee boards have come to operate under has gotten out of hand. I understand the need for confidentiality and, of course, argued that things like executive salaries being kept from publication is acceptable. But our boards are taking the secrecy thing too far.
Look, folks, the age when you could control information as you once could is over. Get over it. If you would be open and share with the people of the SBC the things that need to be shared they would care less about knowing the things that don’t need to be shared.
An informed people is a happy people. Stop acting like the minutes of your meetings are the gold reserves of Fort Knox!
3. I do not know what kind of trustee training goes on, but it should probably not be left up to the institution. They are not motivated to tell people how important accountability is!
4. Since trustee work is so important, it is also important that messengers do more than blindly pass the trustee slate at the convention. If you challenge the name of a trustee, some people react in horror and accuse you of awful things. But some people should not be trustees.
During the CR we made it hard to challenge trustees because of the tactics of the moderates. Now, we ought to consider changing some of those policies. The way they have it set up, there is not time to challenge more than two or three trustees.
If we are going to trust the trustees, it is also our duty to vet the trustees and to seek to replace trustees we find unacceptable – no matter how offended people are at that.
This topic may require some follow-up posts. This should be enough for now!
This comments could be handed on down to the local church. When the leader says don’t challenge authority, it is a manipulative behavior, and probably means “we’re doing this so like it or lump it!” It’s not being transparent, and is a “Me” leadership tactic. Leadership, as a trained administrator, is to bring your people along with you. Love your people enough to be transparent with them.
The problem with this system is that there is a bottleneck in the trustee nomination process. You have a president who appoints a committee on committees which then appoints a committee on boards to nominate trustees for vacant positions or renominate those eligible for a “customary second term.” Hence, the problem. A committee appointed by a committee that is appointed by the president is far removed from any accountability. And as you mentioned, what was once pretty much impossible even before the resurgence, which was to challenge the nomination of a trustee from the floor of the convention, is still impossible.
I would suggest that the bylaws be changed to require trustees for SBC entities be nominated from the floor of their state Baptist convention, rather than appointed by a committee appointed by the SBC president, and then elected by the convention individually. Yeah, it would take some time, but boy, does that increase the credibility and accountability of the candidates. Give the state conventions the power to recall trustees they’ve nominated.
So, which state convention makes the nominations from VA and TX?
This idea was rejected during the CR because many of the state conventions were more moderate.
But the other issue is polity. The state conventions are autonomous entities and so having them appoint or nominate trustees violates connectionalism.
At least that is the argument.
During the whole time that I have had an interest in observing and participating in the Southern Baptist Convention, going back to my college days prior to the conservative resurgence, any attempt that has ever been made to change the distance between the trustees and the convention body has never really seen the light of day. There’s always a reason not to do it. The convention body itself from year to year is made up mostly of pastors from smaller churches and I’ve always heard the excuse that since many of them are bi-vocational, or single staff, they don’t have time for committee meetings and board meetings. I think there’s a fear, among whomever has been among those privileged to get trustee seats and committee memberships, that small churches and their pastors might “take over” and run things if there’s a level of accountability.
I think a good place to start would be for the committee on committees for the next year’s convention to be nominated and elected from the floor of the convention rather than appointed by the president.
I hear you Dave, but to Lee’s point, this was Exactly how the Conservative Resurgence gained control of the Convention. To that extent, Trustees are a “good-ole-boy” club and they are used (and appointed) to forward agendas.
Having said that, I don’t know how else to do it. As you said, the State Conventions would almost surely do the same thing.
I agree 100% Dave with your post.
I am a layman and I am NOT well connected in the SBC. But I have from time personally reached out to selected trustees. I believe the vast majority of trustees, at least the ones I’ve talked to, reach out to the people in the pews to answer questions and listen to them. The reason that boards have an uneven reputation is due to the fact that a few renegade trustees try to [and often succeed in their attempt to] steamroll over everyone else. This narrow subset of trustees evidently believes that the only way they can “have stature” is by arbitrarily “being the boss” and having their way.
I believe we are at the beginning of a new day with the boards. Most of the egomaniacs are riding into the sunset. Modern communication enables the bad apples to eventually be exposed.
It is important that the committee on boards carefully vet new trustee nominations. The process has to be sufficient to weed out those who are only out to build their own empire. I wonder if patronage if one reason that trustee boards occasionally have to deal with members who insist on “my way or the highway”.
The egomaniacs are not riding into the sunset. If I could convince Baptists of anything, it’s that.
Without faithful oversight and accountability, today’s bright young stars turn into tomorrow’s old egomaniacs. And left to their own devices, that’s what happens. Far too many Baptist boards are expert at loving our heroes to death.
I agree with this post.
I do not agree with Southern Baptists not being permitted to know the salaries of those who work for its institutions. Sunlight is good for organizations. Southern Baptists need to know information about what Trustees are doing to know whether they agree or disagree with how Trustees are governing.
But these are generally good points.
I do not like the oversized influence agencies continue to have in trustee selection, however.
Trustees are supposed to be independent and oversee the administration of the organizations they lead. If agencies and their staffs have too much influence, we end up with a bad situation.
This was a major complaint in the moderate years.
Obviously, conservatives did not like moderates within agencies trying to select or veto their own trustees.
We shouldn’t like it now either.
Dave- terrific article. Thank you. You expressed my feelings about this matter. We should all heed these words and follow these instructions.
Dave, this question is for you and all of us who had the discussion about who should be hired to lead our agencies.
When those decisions are ultimately made, barring our personal knowledge of the candidates involved and the fact that we are free to have our own opinions, will we trust the trustees on their selections?
Will we accuse the trustees of being less than they should be if they don’t select someone we would have preferred?
The only reservation, of course, being if the search committees or trustees articulate some unbiblical standard or reason for a hire or make some other morally objectionable statement.
It would seem to me, barring that reservation, if we criticize the choice and cast aspersions, particularly moral ones, of the trustees, the SBC etc., we will be violating your good advice.
I can already see the youngster Twitter mob forming.
“If you would be open and share with the people of the SBC the things that need to be shared they would care less about knowing the things that don’t need to be shared.”
So true! There used to be a saying back in the day: “Trust God and tell the people.” Too bad it’s not still in effect.
This is an old system, put in place long before there was a conservative resurgence and it was deliberately designed to set up trustee boards made up of connected individuals who would protect the agency executives and not hold them accountable and to grant favors and help others in the same circle of friends to gain the positions they wanted. One of the major complaints about pre-resurgence leadership in the SBC was that the same individuals kept making the rounds of trustee boards. One of the newspapers that emerged around that time did some research and found that half of those who served as trustees had been on at least one other board, the exec committee or another committee, and also served in a similar capacity in their state convention. It was not uncommon in those days to find individuals on an SBC trustee board also serving at the same time on a trustee board in a state convention. It would be simple to change the constitution and bylaws to build in some accountability.
When the same individuals hold on to committee and board seats and on to denominational jobs and there is no real accountability except to a stacked trustee board, bad things can happen that make the denomination look bad. Google some of the news stories about the scandal at the Arizona Baptist Foundation back in the 90’s. That event altered the work of the state convention and crippled it for decades, all because an influential Baptist used his trustee connections to make his son his successor. Keeping in mind that people are giving and tithing sacrificially to their church to provide this money, perks should not come with jobs.
http://www.fraudnewsamerica.com/fraud-news-america-articles/fraud-history-the-500-million-pyramid-how-william-crotts-bankrupted-the-baptist-foundation-of-arizona/3/
A couple of thoughts:
1. There should be a clear prohibition of trustees going on to work for the agency they are trustees of. Perhaps not a lifetime ban, but certainly a set number of years. Whether or not there was inappropriate influence, it just looks questionable for someone to be on the trustee board that hired an entity head and then turning around and going to work for that person. If an individual is the most qualified potential VP for IMB or NAMB or Lifeway or EC or a seminary, they should resign from the board and allow someone unconnected to take their place. If you hope to teach at a school, you should not accept a trustee slot at that school. I don’t think that applies in the other direction–for example, if someone had taught at a school and no longer did, that does not set up the conflict.
2. I know this will be an “autonomy” problem, but we really ought to look harder at making sure we’re not just reloading boards with folks from the exact same churches. I know FBC Bigtown/recently renamed to Bigtown Church or whatever is huge, gives a lot of dollars, but should we really have 3 or 4 members of various boards from that same church?
3. There should be no “double-boarding.” If you’re on a state board, you should not be a national one, or vice-versa. If we are so hard up for people willing to serve, then let’s solve that problem.
4. I’d love to see, rather than a video from David Platt, the Arkansas members of IMB stand up and report at the state convention what’s going on at IMB. Just to be visible. Same with any others–there was a Southwestern Booth at the ABSC. How about having the trustees from this state rotate being there, visible as trustees, and available to chat with messengers? Same with Lifeway, EC, etc… Augie’s 7 minutes were great, it was good to have him there live and in person, yet I can’t help wonder if the Arkansas-connected members of the EC couldn’t have done it? We’d have saved Mr. Boto travel time and expense, and seen who it is that represents us. More than just a name on a list over at SBCThisWeek, that would reminds us who are trustees are in flesh and blood.
5. Better training and clearly given guidelines about communications. Including posting some of the frequently asked questions. How about a spot on every entity’s website with Trustee info, including FAQs like “Why we don’t publish salary information?” “Who do I contact if I think this entity is out of control?” “Who do I contact when the entity head is non-responsive?” “When does the board meet?” “Can I attend board meetings?” All with short answers written by board members.
6. A more open nominations process. Our state runs a form in the state newspaper soliciting nominations from at-large for boards and committees. The times I was on the nomcom, we considered every one of those forms. All 3 of them in 3 years–people did not use the tools provided. But how about a digital form? Or make it a question on the ACP? 🙂
(And, don’t nominate anyone whose church doesn’t file a complete ACP. That’ll get the data to Lifeway!)
7. Shorten trustee terms and/or prohibit re-entry. The structure as it sits allows one to sit on a board for 10 years, take a year off, and be back on for 10 years. For 20 of 21 years, 30 of 32, etc., one can sit on the same board.
Boards do not need to be adversarial with their entities, but there needs to be a level of distance where the board members are still clearly watching over on behalf of the SBC.
There are 13 million church members, maybe 5.5 million attending. So even if we calculate the very active and engaged at 500,000, that’s a large enough pool of people to staff trustee positions and committee memberships and limit all participants to two terms and once that is complete, no other boards or committees period.
Worthy ideas. Not sure I am fully onboard with all but they are thoughtful and worth discussion.
I have my doubts about a couple of them myself.
Especially items like some form of prohibition of hiring of former board members, knowing that we have some good folks that were board members and now work for seminaries. I wonder, “Aren’t we glad that XXXX is a professor? What would we have lost without him?” but that line of thinking assumes that there was nothing lost by him sitting in two seats–that there was no one else worthy or competent for either the board job or the professor job. (And for how good a few of the profs I’m thinking of are, I’d figure we could have had a different board member.)
Probably prohibiting re-entry is too harsh, but there needs to be a strong lag time and we definitely need to watch out for the “Bob is wrapping up his 10 years on the EC, now it’s time for Bob to get 10 years on IMB.”
Somehow, there also needs to be a look at why some churches always have at least one member on a board somewhere. Are we really so petty that we have to have board seats to stay engaged in the mission?
Would we sell committee seats at church like that? Or influence? Or would we not be principled at some point?
Churches get destroyed when they sell influence. They become ineffective for the Gospel, they eat pastors and destroy those who can’t afford influence. We should be wary of that template in SBC life. Play with that fire long enough, and we’ll not only get burned, we’ll be consumed.
What we’ve got is better than self-perpetuating boards with no change, no accountability. But it needs improved.
I was told this week from a trustee he receives a scholarship for being a trustee. I’m not sure, but that seems to be a bit of a conflict of interest. Anybody?
That would seem odd.
And having students as trustees in general, scholarship or not, may be perceived as a conflict of interest. Not sure how accrediting agencies feel about it.
It could be only given to PhD students as this is what he’s studying. I don’t know. He’s a great guy. Great pastor. So I’m not certain if it’s only certain seminaries. Either way it struck me as odd.