October 28, 2014
|
Most Recent Update from the GTS 8.
|
Dear friends,
We thank all for your concern and your energetic support for a neutral organizational ombudsperson. We continue to hold that the appointment of such a person, who would be agreeable to all parties, is very important to ensure that complaints can be treated expeditiously in a process that is safe and agreeable to all, whatever the outcome. We see this as an important ingredient to reduce unnecessary tension during the coming months, and to facilitate the rehabilitation of trust.
In light of some responses we have seen on social media, we feel it is important to clarify an aspect of the proposed agreement sent by the Board of Trustees to the group. The Board renewed its proposal of using the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center (LMPC) which specializes in conflict mediation as part of a process of reconciliation. We continue to think this plan is promising for the health and healing of the entire community, and so are pleased to see that it continues to be part of the Board's commitment to the long-term health of the Seminary.
We consider it very important, however, to have an organizational ombudsperson in addition to or alongside LMPC - a person who is designated neutral and who is agreeable to all, a person to whom all could turn if concerns should arise.
This role is quite well-known in educational institutions, governmental agencies, and even private corporations in North America and elsewhere. Such persons are always designated neutral persons, high-ranking, but not part of the executive management. They stand along side, but are distinct from people working as conflict mediators.
We learned this afternoon that there is provision in the Seminary's agreement with LMPC to have an independent third party attend certain sessions. This may provide an opportunity for a role for an ombudsperson; it would need to be determined by the mediators whether such a person would help best inside or outside this process.
Above all we long to return to our ministries in the Seminary for the good of our students and the good of our institution.
Faithfully
The GTS 8.
We thank all for your concern and your energetic support for a neutral organizational ombudsperson. We continue to hold that the appointment of such a person, who would be agreeable to all parties, is very important to ensure that complaints can be treated expeditiously in a process that is safe and agreeable to all, whatever the outcome. We see this as an important ingredient to reduce unnecessary tension during the coming months, and to facilitate the rehabilitation of trust.
In light of some responses we have seen on social media, we feel it is important to clarify an aspect of the proposed agreement sent by the Board of Trustees to the group. The Board renewed its proposal of using the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center (LMPC) which specializes in conflict mediation as part of a process of reconciliation. We continue to think this plan is promising for the health and healing of the entire community, and so are pleased to see that it continues to be part of the Board's commitment to the long-term health of the Seminary.
We consider it very important, however, to have an organizational ombudsperson in addition to or alongside LMPC - a person who is designated neutral and who is agreeable to all, a person to whom all could turn if concerns should arise.
This role is quite well-known in educational institutions, governmental agencies, and even private corporations in North America and elsewhere. Such persons are always designated neutral persons, high-ranking, but not part of the executive management. They stand along side, but are distinct from people working as conflict mediators.
We learned this afternoon that there is provision in the Seminary's agreement with LMPC to have an independent third party attend certain sessions. This may provide an opportunity for a role for an ombudsperson; it would need to be determined by the mediators whether such a person would help best inside or outside this process.
Above all we long to return to our ministries in the Seminary for the good of our students and the good of our institution.
Faithfully
The GTS 8.
October 27, 2014
The GTS Board of Trustees saw fit last Friday to release a statement that prematurely implied our return to the Seminary was imminent. We therefore believe it is necessary to clarify just where we are in the negotiating process.
From the outset, the central issue we have sought to address is the existence of an abusive environment at GTS. This is why we called our Facebook page “Safe Space.” Many of the details have been well-publicized and do not need repeating here.
The Board of Trustees’ unqualified vote of confidence in President and Dean Dunkle understandably raises a concern about whether anything would be different upon our return other than our reduced academic roles and our new status as “provisional.” Our proposed solution to this concern has been for the Board to name an unaligned, objective ombudsperson who would be available to any member of the GTS community who believes he or she has a legitimate complaint. That doesn’t seem like a radical step to us, but on Monday evening the Board’s attorney informed us that this idea was unacceptable.
Rather than name a single impartial person to act as ombudsperson, the Board proposes to appoint a four-person committee of trustees, chaired by the Rev. Ellen Tillotson, to field any complaints. But a month ago, the Rev. Tillotson sharply criticized us in a 1,200-word essay she posted on social media. One of the first trustees to speak out on the dispute, the Rev. Tillotson said she felt “profoundly betrayed” by us, and she falsely accused us of timing our work stoppage to cause as much distress as possible to the GTS students. Her view of the situation has been made crystal clear, and it is not an objective one.
The other point the Board seems to miss is that, despite deciding that there were not sufficient grounds to terminate Dean Dunkle, the complaints we made about him remain, and continue to create a toxic work environment. A four-person committee chaired by an outspoken critic is not going to rectify that problem.
In its Friday public statement, the Board lifted language from an earlier letter we wrote for an entirely different purpose to suggest that in a “joint response” we had thanked the trustees for giving attention “to a long-term process of reconciliation for the entire Seminary community.” There can be no reconciliation as long as students and faculty lack the confidence that their work, their contributions – even their presence – are valued by the President and Dean.
So here is where we really stand in our efforts to return to GTS: We have made a proposal that we consider reasonable and essential, the naming of an ombudsperson, and the Board has rejected it.
We cannot know whether all the trustees are listening to what we say. For the sake of the institution we all love, we pray that they are.
From the outset, the central issue we have sought to address is the existence of an abusive environment at GTS. This is why we called our Facebook page “Safe Space.” Many of the details have been well-publicized and do not need repeating here.
The Board of Trustees’ unqualified vote of confidence in President and Dean Dunkle understandably raises a concern about whether anything would be different upon our return other than our reduced academic roles and our new status as “provisional.” Our proposed solution to this concern has been for the Board to name an unaligned, objective ombudsperson who would be available to any member of the GTS community who believes he or she has a legitimate complaint. That doesn’t seem like a radical step to us, but on Monday evening the Board’s attorney informed us that this idea was unacceptable.
Rather than name a single impartial person to act as ombudsperson, the Board proposes to appoint a four-person committee of trustees, chaired by the Rev. Ellen Tillotson, to field any complaints. But a month ago, the Rev. Tillotson sharply criticized us in a 1,200-word essay she posted on social media. One of the first trustees to speak out on the dispute, the Rev. Tillotson said she felt “profoundly betrayed” by us, and she falsely accused us of timing our work stoppage to cause as much distress as possible to the GTS students. Her view of the situation has been made crystal clear, and it is not an objective one.
The other point the Board seems to miss is that, despite deciding that there were not sufficient grounds to terminate Dean Dunkle, the complaints we made about him remain, and continue to create a toxic work environment. A four-person committee chaired by an outspoken critic is not going to rectify that problem.
In its Friday public statement, the Board lifted language from an earlier letter we wrote for an entirely different purpose to suggest that in a “joint response” we had thanked the trustees for giving attention “to a long-term process of reconciliation for the entire Seminary community.” There can be no reconciliation as long as students and faculty lack the confidence that their work, their contributions – even their presence – are valued by the President and Dean.
So here is where we really stand in our efforts to return to GTS: We have made a proposal that we consider reasonable and essential, the naming of an ombudsperson, and the Board has rejected it.
We cannot know whether all the trustees are listening to what we say. For the sake of the institution we all love, we pray that they are.
October 21, 2014
Dear Friends,
Thank you for your patience and prayers for us and for all the students, staff, Board and administration of the Seminary. We last spoke publicly last Friday, and have spent the intervening time reflecting on the Board’s press release, and privately seeking clarification on the meaning of that statement.
Last night we received a letter from Bishop Sisk which clarified the offer, and we drafted a positive response, which we needed to have checked with our legal counsel. Since some aspects of the contents of the Board’s offer were made public this afternoon in the Bishop of Pennsylvania’s public statement via Episcopal Café we feel it is appropriate to make our positive response public also. We look forward to resuming our ministries in the Seminary.
Thank you for your patience and prayers for us and for all the students, staff, Board and administration of the Seminary. We last spoke publicly last Friday, and have spent the intervening time reflecting on the Board’s press release, and privately seeking clarification on the meaning of that statement.
Last night we received a letter from Bishop Sisk which clarified the offer, and we drafted a positive response, which we needed to have checked with our legal counsel. Since some aspects of the contents of the Board’s offer were made public this afternoon in the Bishop of Pennsylvania’s public statement via Episcopal Café we feel it is appropriate to make our positive response public also. We look forward to resuming our ministries in the Seminary.
October 18, 2014
The eight fired faculty members of the General Theological Seminary sincerely thank the thousands of academics, hundreds of clergy and colleagues, GTS alumni, and other Christian faithful from around the world who have expressed their support for us in the aftermath of the Board of Trustees’ disappointing decision today. Your prayers, your passionate commitment to our cause, and outpouring of love continue to lift us up and sustain us.
For now, we need to spend some time individually and collectively in prayerful reflection on the Board’s decision so that we can determine the best way forward.
For now, we need to spend some time individually and collectively in prayerful reflection on the Board’s decision so that we can determine the best way forward.
October 9, 2014
We are dismayed by the response of our church’s leaders to the situation at General Theological Seminary. When the eight of us brought to the Board of Trustees what we believe are extremely important issues affecting the fundamental life and mission of our seminary, we expected them to follow the procedures set out in both the seminary handbooks and our church canons. We believed they would establish a safe and non-hostile environment in which to carry out an impartial investigation. Instead, neither these procedures nor the substance of our concerns was honored. We received only a compassionless and intimidating demand that we cooperate with a corporate law firm’s investigation.
Even now, as we have lost our jobs for continuing to plead that these matters be addressed honorably, we cannot believe that our Presiding Bishop, the entire House of Bishops, and the good people who serve as trustees of GTS truly intend to punish those who have brought these issues to their attention. Nor do we think that they actually want to support and defend an environment of fear and anxiety that so many have told us they experience as humiliating. If they did intend to do these things, what message are they sending to Episcopal clergy and lay-persons? What would this say about the church’s respect for the vulnerable all around our country? What would this say about the moral conscience of our church’s leaders?
We continue to hope – and believe – that our trust and confidence in the commitment to mercy and justice of the leaders of this great church are well founded, even if those qualities are not yet clearly evident. We have now agreed to a meeting with the Board of Trustees and stand ready to return to our work once they are prepared to reinstate us.
Even now, as we have lost our jobs for continuing to plead that these matters be addressed honorably, we cannot believe that our Presiding Bishop, the entire House of Bishops, and the good people who serve as trustees of GTS truly intend to punish those who have brought these issues to their attention. Nor do we think that they actually want to support and defend an environment of fear and anxiety that so many have told us they experience as humiliating. If they did intend to do these things, what message are they sending to Episcopal clergy and lay-persons? What would this say about the church’s respect for the vulnerable all around our country? What would this say about the moral conscience of our church’s leaders?
We continue to hope – and believe – that our trust and confidence in the commitment to mercy and justice of the leaders of this great church are well founded, even if those qualities are not yet clearly evident. We have now agreed to a meeting with the Board of Trustees and stand ready to return to our work once they are prepared to reinstate us.
October 6, 2014
The chairman of the GTS Board of Trustees, Bishop Mark Sisk, apparently wishes to give the appearance of offering a conciliatory hand to the eight striking faculty members without actually engaging in a sincere effort at reconciliation. At least that is the implication of an email sent to Dr. Deirdre Good concerning the previously agreed-to October 16 meeting between the faculty members and board Executive Committee.
In responding on October 3 to Bishop Sisk’s invitation to meet, the faculty members wrote to the trustees in an entirely conciliatory tone that we welcomed the opportunity “with our most sincere hope of working with you to find a way forward.”
Our letter also made two important points: (1) That our original letter to the board on September 17 and follow-up communication to it never were intended as letters of resignation; (2) that a summary Bishop Sisk requested of a phone conversation between him and Dr. Good in which she asked the bishop to work with her to de-escalate the current situation in no way contained what later were characterized as demands.
It has been our assumption and intention that the purpose of the October 16 meeting was to provide a forum to air what we consider legitimate grievances before a group of fair-minded and curious trustees and to work together to seek genuine solutions.
Imagine our disappointment then when on October 6 Bishop Sisk emailed Dr. Good with a message that clarified his view of the meeting, essentially, as: We will hear your concerns, but you’re still fired.
Here is the entire text of Bishop Sisk’s email: “As previously communicated in my emails of October 1st and October 3rd, the Executive Committee and I presently anticipate, as stated, meeting with you and your colleagues on October 16th to hear your concerns. As also stated previously in the Board of Trustee communication of September 30th, your resignations have been accepted. Classes are being taught by supplemental faculty, as also previously stated, in an email circulated by the Dean on October 3rd.”
While it appears Bishop Sisk sees the October 16 meeting as window dressing, we wonder if all the board members do. Or do other trustees believe the meeting was scheduled so that we could engage in substantive adult conversation aimed at resolving the crisis? If so, we hope they will communicate that to the Chair and all the members of the Executive Committee.
In accepting Bishop Sisk’s invitation to meet, we said, “We hope sending this message to all of you board members will help us move forward together as soon as possible, for the sake of the students and the seminary. When Professor Good thanked Bishop Sisk for his positive letter, offered in the spirit of an invitation, we were agreeing to your terms for the October 16th meeting. We hope you will consider our suggestions in the spirit of collaboration and conciliation that we desperately need.”
We still cling to that hope.
In responding on October 3 to Bishop Sisk’s invitation to meet, the faculty members wrote to the trustees in an entirely conciliatory tone that we welcomed the opportunity “with our most sincere hope of working with you to find a way forward.”
Our letter also made two important points: (1) That our original letter to the board on September 17 and follow-up communication to it never were intended as letters of resignation; (2) that a summary Bishop Sisk requested of a phone conversation between him and Dr. Good in which she asked the bishop to work with her to de-escalate the current situation in no way contained what later were characterized as demands.
It has been our assumption and intention that the purpose of the October 16 meeting was to provide a forum to air what we consider legitimate grievances before a group of fair-minded and curious trustees and to work together to seek genuine solutions.
Imagine our disappointment then when on October 6 Bishop Sisk emailed Dr. Good with a message that clarified his view of the meeting, essentially, as: We will hear your concerns, but you’re still fired.
Here is the entire text of Bishop Sisk’s email: “As previously communicated in my emails of October 1st and October 3rd, the Executive Committee and I presently anticipate, as stated, meeting with you and your colleagues on October 16th to hear your concerns. As also stated previously in the Board of Trustee communication of September 30th, your resignations have been accepted. Classes are being taught by supplemental faculty, as also previously stated, in an email circulated by the Dean on October 3rd.”
While it appears Bishop Sisk sees the October 16 meeting as window dressing, we wonder if all the board members do. Or do other trustees believe the meeting was scheduled so that we could engage in substantive adult conversation aimed at resolving the crisis? If so, we hope they will communicate that to the Chair and all the members of the Executive Committee.
In accepting Bishop Sisk’s invitation to meet, we said, “We hope sending this message to all of you board members will help us move forward together as soon as possible, for the sake of the students and the seminary. When Professor Good thanked Bishop Sisk for his positive letter, offered in the spirit of an invitation, we were agreeing to your terms for the October 16th meeting. We hope you will consider our suggestions in the spirit of collaboration and conciliation that we desperately need.”
We still cling to that hope.