Last November I offered an amendment to the recommended Great Commission Resurgence Task Force that added all seven SCBC institutional presidents to the group. The amendment was approved by the convention.
My thinking – and, I believe, the thinking of the convention – was that no one could better represent and defend the institutions than the presidents themselves. If money is going to be stripped, then the presidents should at least be able to defend their positions. If they agree with the decisions of the GCR report, then wonderful. However, if they disagree, then they would have had a right to offer a minority report to the convention for consideration. After reading the GCR report, it is my conclusion that the presidents must believe that they can live without the funding they are going to lose.
However, all wrapped up in this report is a major change in our system of governance, which will likely require a bylaw, and possibly a charter, change. The GCR report is asking the convention to change the process through which trustees to our institutions are chosen and also to allow up to 20 percent of trustees to be selected from outside the state of South Carolina. This is a radical change that I believe will ultimately alter the type of leaders who have served us so well.
Over the last two decades, our Nominations Committee has had the sole responsibility of choosing the leaders to hold our institutions in trust – without outside pressures. They have looked for people based on what is in their hearts rather than what is in their wallets. I believe we should continue this process and reject any attempt to change the system that has served us so well. Thus, it is my desire to see an amendment at this year’s convention that will retain our current process in electing trustees.
What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editor addressing this or another subject.