Bylaws and Byways: Law and Anarchy at General Theological Seminary

As a current ThD student at The General Theological Seminary, perhaps the most
troubling piece of information to have been disseminated in the slew of blog posts,
comments, tweets, and emails that have piled up since the beginning of the ensuing crisis
at GTS for me has been the Facebook post of Rev. Ellen Tillotson, a GTS board member
(and priest in the church). Rev. Tillotson alleged that faculty members had knowingly
planned their actions for many months in an attempt to undermine the authority of the
Dean and President and force the boards hand by strong-arm tactics. These allegations
have been addressed quite astutely by GTS professor Rev. Dr. Amy Lamborn in a
comment to Tillotsons post at the Episcopal Caf. However, Tillotson makes additional
claims also at work in the Board of Trustees Sept. 30, 2014 letter that thus far have not
been addressed. They pertain to the numbered list of requests in the Facultys first letter
(Sept. 17, 2014). After providing her own paraphrases of each of the requests, Tillotson
says, Numbers three and five aren't bad ideas at that. The others are simply impossible.
Impossible. Numbers three and five harmlessly request for someone external to the
institution to be made available for pastoral support of students, staff, and faculty, and for
the hiring of a fundraiser, respectively.
In what follows I briefly want to touch on those faculty requests Tillotson calls
simply impossible and that the Boards letter (Sept. 30) says are at odds with the
governing structure of the institution. I will quote from each of the three remaining
requests and work through all publicly promulgated bylaws of both the Board and of the
2012 Faculty Handbook (FH) as well as the 2012 Community Life Handbook (CLH). We
should make note from the start that Tillotson and other board members have consistently
referred in their communications to the current bylaws, which apparently were revised
in May. However, these revisions have never been promulgated, despite the fact that they
have been invoked against the Facultys requests and affect the entire community: the
Board, the Faculty, and students. Canon Elizabeth Geitz, a member of Executive
Committee and Chair of the Governance/Trustee Committee, stated in an email today she
oversaw these changes and redirected my request for them to the Chancellor of the
Board. What her communication makes clear is that these revised bylaws have never
been communicated either to the Faculty or to the student body. This is particularly
troubling, since, as Tillotson recently confirmed, the four student seats on the board were
recently removed by revisions to the bylawsagain, revisions not publicly known.
On to the Facultys remaining three requests:
Number 1: The immediate appointment of a committee of Board members, to be
determined by the faculty [so they know its not rigged against their concerns no
doubt!], to meet with us to discuss conditions necessary for moving forward as an
institution during the October meeting of the Board of Trustees.

1995 Constitution and Statutes of GTS (hereafter C&S), II.7: Other Committees.
The Board or the Executive Committee may appoint from time to time such other
Standing, Special Committees or Ad Hoc Committees as either of them may deem
desirable, with such duties, membership, and terms of office as shall be stated in

such appointment. A majority of each Standing Committee shall be members of

the Board.
The Board may establish an ad hoc committee consisting of various members, provided
that its majority are members of the Board. Even non-board members and faculty may be
a part of such a committee. Nothing prohibits consultation with faculty about the
membership of these committees, and thus nothing in the governance structure of the
seminary or its publicly accessible bylaws prevents this request from being met.
Number 2: That action be taken to empower the faculty with immediate oversight
over the curriculum, schedule, worship, and overall program of formation for the
seminary. This should also involve the appointment of a faculty council who will
implement a pattern of worship consistent with the Book of Common Prayer
(1979).

a. Curriculum: Subject to policies of the Board of Trustees, the ordering of all

details of the curriculum shall be by action of the Dean and Faculty, subject to the
provisions of the Constitution and these Bylaws (C&S, article VI).

Two points must be made here.

1. Though the bylaws empower the faculty to determine and order all details of the
curriculum with the Dean, the issue at stake is that the Dean has been imposing
requirements upon the curriculum without collaboration with the faculty. This
particular bylaw, however, has longstanding historical precedent: collaboration
has been written into the very law of the seminary with regard to curriculum for
many, many years. It is thus precisely the bylaws of the institution that have been
violated by the Deans non-collaborative leadership, including oversight of the
curriculum, producing a hostile work environment.
2. According to the bylaws, from the very institution of GTS, the Dean has been
understood to be a member of the Faculty and so collaborative efforts between
Dean and Faculty with respect to ordering the curriculum are expected. (See the
Act of Incorporation and the corresponding first C&S, April 5, 1822: The title of
Dean shall be held in annual rotation by the resident Professors, beginning with
the first appointed, and proceeding in the order of seniority, VI.6.2.) However,
when the Dean is not a qualified person to teach, has no experience in theological
education, and has not earned the advanced degrees necessary to teach and lead
within an institution of higher theological learning, there is a real question
whether this bylaw together with a Dean who is not only a member of the Faculty
but one who exercises any form of control over the curriculum breaches ATS
standards: The faculty who teach in a program on a continuing basis shall
exercise responsibility for the planning, design, and oversight of its curriculum
(Association of Theological Schools, General Institutional Standards, 5.1.4;
hereafter ATS; cf. ATS 7.3.3). Though the Dean is a member of the Faculty
according to GTS bylaws, he is not one who teach[es] in a program on a
continuing basis and so has no place exercising responsibility for the planning,

design, and oversight of GTSs curriculum. This particular bylaw, in other

words, can only maintain accrediting standards when the Dean who is a member
of the Faculty is also a qualified instructor/professor who teaches on a regular
basis. This has not been the case under the leadership of Dean Dunkle, who has
arrogated to himself via the protection of the bylaws responsibilities he simply
cannot perform.

b. Schedule:

There is nothing specific pertaining to the schedule, either of classes, programs, or

worship, in the bylaws. However, we should note that many if not all faculty members
were so constrained by increasing pressure from the Dean to be present at worship in the
chapel and at midday lunches at the refectory (to the point that the Dean was counting
how many times faculty members were present and absent in an obvious display of
intimidation and coercion) that the Deans tight control of the schedule was interfering
with classes, professional development, and the simple ability of faculty members to get
their jobs done. One particular faculty member told me that, after sitting on committees
and sub-committees, attending morning prayer scheduled at a time that literally
interrupted the first class of the day and caused innumerable delays in the schedules of
those classes, along with Eucharists and evensongsin addition to all of the other normal
requirements attendant to professors for teaching, advising, and formationthere was
literally 0% time remaining for ongoing professional development in terms of research,
publication, attending conferences, and so on. The Deans control over the schedule thus
interrupted and hijacked the classroom and rejects the demand and expectation for faculty
members ongoing professional development, which is a requirement not only of the
bylaws of the seminary and of the FH, but of ATS accreditation requirements as well (see
especially FH, Other Policies Established by the Board of Trustees, C4, p. 15).
It should also be noted that in previous C&Ss the following language was used: All
members of the Faculty are expected to attend the scheduled Seminary chapel services to
the extent that their schedules permit (2.8.1, C&S 1987).

c. Worship: All religious services shall be under the charge and direction of the
Dean (C&S III.2); It is expected that all full time faculty members, as well as
all students, will participate in the regular worship life of the Seminary
community and will assume responsibility for the planning and leadership of
worship (FH, Other Policies, C6, p. 16).

While religious services have been under the charge and direction of the Dean
basically from the beginning of GTSs history, how charge and direction has been
understood has developed over the years. Since the adoption of the 1979 Book of
Common Prayer the Dean, who has almost always been selected from among the Faculty
on rotation rather than being someone with no experience in theological education, has

been pressed to collaborate with others, including both faculty and staff, in the planning
and leadership of worship as laid out in the FH.
If we compare the student CLH, however, we also see that the Dean does not possess the
immediate oversight of the design of the liturgy, nor of the usage of space (including
whether to remove pews), nor of the Guild of Sacristans (nor its Chief Sacristan), nor or
the training of liturgical leadersall of these according to the CLH (rev. 2012, the only
copy currently present on GTSs website) are under the charge of the Liturgics professor
(http://resource.gts.edu/images/Documents/CommunityLifeHandbook%209%2017%201
4%20revision.pdf, p. 12; note that the name of the .pdf is 09 17 2014 revision). In
addition, the CLH states that the Dean, the Liturgics Professor, the Church Music
Professor, and the Professor of Preaching will constitute the Worship Leaders Guild,
which, together with the Worship Committee made up of representatives drawn from
all sectors of the seminary community, offers advice and counsel to the Dean on all
matters related to worship (ibid.). Not only has the Professor of Liturgics not been
allowed to design the liturgy, or be responsible for the usage of space and oversight of the
Guild of Sacristans, under the leadership of Dean Dunkle, but the Worship Leaders
Guild and Worship Committee both vanished upon his taking up of his duties.
Finally, note carefully that the CLH still produces the old chapel schedule that was
subsequently superseded by Dean Dunkle in Easter term 2014, despite unanimous
objection to this new (and now current) schedule by the entire faculty as well as students
(see, e.g., the letter from students to the Dean, February 7, 2014, sent first by Fr. William
Ogburn to Executive Committee board member Robert Wright, and then posted here:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/seminaries/a_gts_trustee_reflects_on_the.html#com
ment-51648).

d. Program of Formation:

The only recent version of the bylaws I could find (and purely by accident, it would
seem) is a set of proposed amendments for consideration at the boards meeting of May
1213, 2014which means, I do not know which of these were accepted/ratified. The
new Article I.9 of the bylaws proposes that the following roles be assigned: The Board
of Trustees shall set policy for the Seminary. The Dean shall administer and implement
that policy. The Faculty shall educate and form future ordained and lay leaders of the
church, subject to the policies of the Board and direction of the Dean. Now, it is
important to point out that this is a brand new revisionagain, this is not a publicly
promulgated document!and essentially undermines the collaborative vision of previous
bylaws between Faculty and Dean. Nonetheless, note that formation is still under the
charge of the Faculty, so this particular request is not in fact impossible according to the
current governing structures of the seminarys bylaws.

e. Faculty Worship Council: See above on worship and the details of the CLH,
which envisions a Worship Leaders Guild, a collaborative group of Dean and

representative Faculty, which works together with a worship committee made up

of members of the entire community. Once again, this is not an outlandish claim,
or an impossible one, according to currently publicly promulgated bylaws and
documents of the seminary.
Number 4: Steps be immediately taken to restore and ensure that the faculty
members be afforded due process in connection with all appointments, worship and
formation, and the implementation of our curriculum. The Academic Dean should
be empowered with the authority necessary to implement properly the academic
program, consistent with the standards of the Association of Theological Schools
(ATS) and our own recent Declaration of the Way of Wisdom.
Current publicly promulgated bylaws of the institution provide faculty members with
precisely the due process they request here. Moreover, ATS standards require faculty to
be afforded such due process (see ATS 7.3.3.1; the bylaws, the FH, and the CLH of the
seminary also expect faculty to be afforded such as well).
It should be noted that Tillotsons rephrasing of this particular request misconstrues it as
a demand placing the authority for the implementation of the program of the seminary in
the office of the Academic Dean. That is not in fact what it requests: it requests that the
Academic Dean be empowered with the authority necessary to implement properly the
academic program, that is, that the Academic Dean be allowed to do (in this case) her
job. Nothing more. And it is specifically making this request in conformity with ATS
standards. Tillotsons rephrasing (really, misquoting) is in fact a misconstrual. Moreover,
this requests that steps be taken to restore faculty members due process for these
important aspects of their leadership within the seminary that were taken away from them
when the Dean was lodged with unprecedented powers over what never had been the
Deans duties in the past at this seminary (at least not with one as unqualified
academically as the current Dean).
One other consideration:
The CLH specifically addresses situations in which the Dean is accused of harassment,
whether against faculty, staff, or students. The procedure that the CLH stipulates in such
instances is that such accusations be brought to the immediate attention of the chair of the
Boardin this case, Bishop Mark Sisk (CLH, 59)who is then to follow the procedures
set out in the preceding paragraphs of the CLH. This is precisely what the Faculty did.
They thus followed the set policies and procedures of the school, which also includes a
non-retaliation policy for any member who brings accusations to light. Indeed, there is a
whistleblower policy, which notably includes the following: No person at the Seminary
who in good faith reports a possible violation shall suffer harassment, retaliation or
adverse employment consequence. A trustee, officer or employee who retaliates against
someone who has reported a possible violation in good faith is subject to discipline up to
and including termination of employment. This Policy is intended to encourage and
enable employees and others to raise serious concerns within the Seminary without fear

of reprisal and prior to seeking resolution outside the Seminary (ibid., 62). Because the
CLH also specifies that the accused should be prevented from having on-on-one contact
with the accused (ibid., 58), especially in a situation with as many allegations and parties
involved as the present dispute, it would only stand to reason that the Dean should have
been removed temporarily according to the CLHs own procedures. At the very least he
should have been removed from chapel, faculty meetings, as well as any private (or
casual/extemporaneous) meetings with accusers as soon as allegations were lodged with
the Chair of the Board. And none of this of course even addresses the question of Title IV
procedures.
Conclusion:
The Faculty thus acted in every instance in consonance with the promulgated documents
governing the life of the seminary, documents Executive Committee, however, has not
followed. It was this situation that precipitated the work stoppage. All of this leaves us
with a very unsettling question: If in fact the Facultys requests in their Sept. 17 letter do
not stand at odds with the publicly promulgated laws of The General Theological
Seminary of The Episcopal Churchas I believe I have shownhow can they (or any
other member of the GTS community) be held accountable to bylaws not publicly
promulgated? In a recent meeting at GTS between students and Ellen Tillotson (along
with two other board members), I asked directly about the issue of the bylaws. When I
mentioned one example among the faculty requests, Tillotsons response to me was, I
understand that you do not understand the bylaws. Heres the rub. How can I know
anything else of the bylaws when they have not been publicly promulgated? Can the
Faculty be beholden to bylaws that were never communicated to them? Can indeed an
entire institution be held hostage by laws that are in truth anarchic? All the more, what
does this say about the nature of a Board of Trustees that operates in this manner? The
profoundly disturbing truth of this crisis is that the Faculty and students all deserve much
better answers than the current administration has been providing. Regardless, it has been
clear for some time that we have all deserved better leadership than either the Dean or
Executive Committee, with Bishop Mark Sisk at the helm, are capable of providing.
J. David Belcher is a public theologian and a ThD student in liturgy at General
Theological Seminary.