Comment on Board requests progress reports from LSU administration by LeRoy Froom.
The original Statement of Support is a most reasonable document with which I can personally support in principle. However, the function of a Board of Directors (Trustees) is to set policy, to create action items, and to see they are carried out by the administration. When a board votes on an agenda item, that action item is usually assigned directly to a specific individual with a specific purpose. The only sentence which denotes action in the original Statement of Support is the line “the board embraces its responsibility for ongoing evaluation and assessment.” This sentence implies that the Board will function as the active force of evaluation and assessment. However, it does not indicate any forthcoming action or who will be in charge of that action. The statement is therefore weak because it does not initiate action.
In the Reaffirmation Statement, the Board instructs continued implementation of its statement. The only implementation of the statement is that it is reaffirming its own responsibility for ongoing evaluation and assessment. But this time, the board passes the buck. It next confers the role of evaluation and assessment to the administration; requesting progress reports identifying actions taken.
The Boards voted actions are extremely vague and nonspecific. In setting policy and in evaluating whether previous policy has been properly implemented, the board has acted weakly in specifying the actions steps needed to resolve the situation. The trust established in the members of the board is being returned as impotent non-action as they fail to perform their fiduciary responsibility.
It is understandable that a Board might want to proceed in a vague manner and create language that would allow room for maneuverability. But, the board clearly states that the issue is “serious and complex.” Serious and complex issues need immediate attention, and certainly this issue is commanding interest nationally, and has impact for the church worldwide. The lack of a cogent action item out of the Boards first statement is troubling. It also shows that the board is unwilling to take the issue head on.
The role of the Board of Directors is to set policy. It is the role of the administration to carry it out. If neither is able to make decisions to create action items in harmony with church positions, then the board needs to realize its flaw and rectify its error immediately.
