BJU Papers: number 07

The narrative arc of BJU from its beginning has been to close the school if it goes away from its mission and creed.  However, I also know that every narrative arc has an end to the story that we end up believing. The problem with our historical institutional story is that we can easily fall into the trap of believing the story we tell so often. Inevitably, we believe the end of the story. BJU is going to inevitably close. I am very uncomfortable with believing that this is the end of the story. I believe it is wrong to believe my own worst fears.

Here is what I believe. BJU is the flagship institution for conservative Christianity. We have a huge opportunity, a blue ocean, where believers from all over the USA and the world can come to BJU and get an outstanding Christian liberal arts education with an emphasis on academic excellence, a Biblical worldview, and the development of one’s character.  This is what we believe! We don’t spend our time talking about the narrative arc that ends with the closure of the school. That’s not in our storyline. We believe the future is incredibly bright!-Dr. Steve Pettit, “State of the University Address,” March 30, 2022

“This is the Lord’s place governed in the fear of God by a board of trustees that is true to its responsibility, and which wants to keep it the kind of school that God called the founder to make it. The founder was intensely committed to having the school close rather than remain open, in contradiction to or compromise of the Gospel of regenerating, sanctifying grace, and other God-glorifying doctrines and principles. Until recent years, each graduating class was commissioned to go to court and close the school rather than letting it remain open in compromise and disobedience. If BJU remains the kind of place to which you would want to send your children, it will be because it has a governing board with the understanding of what sort of school this is supposed to be and possesses the wisdom and courage to do its duty to keep it that way. America’s landscape is littered with one-time good Christian colleges that have become the gates to hell because their boards eventually drank the Kool-Aid of characterlessness and compromise.” -Dr. Bob Jones III, Chancellor, correspondence to alumnus, 2022

Dr. John Lewis, on behalf of the Board of Trustees, responded to the FBFI Letter on March 2, 2022, asking for their prayers for the BJU BOT as they sought to “right the ship.” Going into the spring board meeting on March 28-30, 2022, Dr. Pettit sensed tension and a division within the Board of Trustees that he hadn’t sensed at any point during his eight-year tenure. (This is the time where discussion of a new three-year contract for Dr. Pettit would typically be discussed, but nothing.) Dr. Pettit mentioned to some folks close to him that, coming into the ‘21-‘22 academic year, he believed these were the best days of his presidency. But, at the same time, the University was facing the greatest internal crisis of his tenure. During the Spring of 2022, the administration called that moment a “crisis of confusion.” Dr. Pettit and the entire administration realized there was an issue(s), but the nature of the issue(s) had not been made clear to the administration by the BOT. Dr. Pettit asked the board for clarity at the spring board meeting. He proposed two questions to seek clarity:

1. Is this issue strictly over the management of certain issues that have arisen within the student body? Has the President and Administration failed in their duty to correct these issues?

2. Is the issue the direction of the administration? Has the President and Administration moved the university away from its stated mission? If so, how is this taking place?

Was this recent epicenter of conflict and tension between President Pettit and the BJU BOT a managerial issue or a directional issue? Dr. Pettit assumed it was managerial. The Pettit administration had made intentional efforts to manage and address the issues that had been mentioned by the BOT and publicized. Below are some of the responses from the Pettit administration.

• Dr. Pettit set up a monthly update to the Vice Chairman on what was being done to address the major issues and documented in writing what was done and what they were going to do in the Fashion and Design Department.

  
  

• Continuing to improve in all social media posts. There was a meeting held with all employees in January 2022. The school had approximately 165 social media accounts representing BJU at the time. A social media policy was written by Dr. Gary Weier to try to prevent these public issues from happening again. You can see the policy right here.

  
  

• Lengthening the female shorts in soccer by two inches and the Volleyball shorts by one inch so that they were both equal with one another. Dress and grooming standards were more tightly enforced. There was a record number of demerits given in two months. There were increased dress and hair checks with Student life involvement. (Students and parents noticed the tightening in student life during the second semester.)

  
  

• Two members of the Administration began to attend dress rehearsals to ensure that performances were all acceptable.

  
  

• Steve Pettit issued a public statement on behalf of the administration and the board of trustees about the fashion show. Plans were made to remove the division head from his position. Dr. Pettit personally counseled the male student about the depiction of Christ in the fashion show.

  
  

• The administration implemented a strong vetting process for approving speakers and awards.

An Untested, Untrained Board of Trustees

The 2022 BJU Board of Trustees had never experienced the undue influence from any organization like they were facing from the FBFI both externally and internally to “right the ship” and “change course.” Dr. Pettit had enjoyed a close working relationship with Larry Jackson from 2014-2016 and a good relationship with Dr. Lewis as well from 2016 to early 2022. The Board of Trustees in 2022 undoubtedly sincerely loved BJU and desired to see it prosper. They were all deeply committed to the mission and history of the University.

The 2022 BJU Board of Trustees had never experienced the undue influence from any organization like they were facing from the FBFI both externally and internally to “right the ship” and “change course.”

However, the Board was a relatively new board by comparison since the BJU Board had a reconstruction in 2013 as they anticipated the SACSCOC governing principles. The Board in March of 2022 was a board that had rolled over from a former board and a former way of doing things. They were also a board that had never had any board training in good governing principles and the responsibilities of the individual trustees. It was quite natural to bring in old board ways into the new board, like pouring old wine into new wine skins. The board could have received training and had as a goal to operate at an optimal level. Without training, the sub-optimal and dysfunctional lanes were the only default paths available. If a board remains in the sub-optimal lane long enough, it merges into the dysfunctional lane. Sadly, that’s what happened.

1. Crucial policies left unwritten and unapproved.

A significant issue in 2022 was that there were policies in the BJU Policy Manual that were still unwritten and unapproved policies. According to the BJU Bylaws, the Board of Trustees must establish general policies for the University concerning the mission, vision, clientele, programs, and services. The president is responsible for implementing the policies of the University and the Board.

As the academic year of 21-‘22 began, the BJU Policy Manual under the section Institutional Policies had 18 stated policies that the president is responsible for implementing. Of those 18 policies, nine of them (listed below) had not been written or approved by the Board of Trustees since 2013. (The date of the reconstruction of the BOT) Of those nine unwritten policies, four of them (Bold below) were in the areas of contention that arose during this time.

Volume I: Governance and Administration

Section 1.5.0: Philosophy Statement on Governance

Volume II: Community Policies

Section 2.1.0: Philosophy Statement on Equal Opportunity, Non-Discrimination and Harassment

Section 2.7.0: Philosophy Statement on Advancement and Fund-Raising

Volume III: Personnel Policies

Section 3.1.0: Philosophy Statement on Employees and Their Compensation, Benefits, Grievances, Complaints, Discipline, and Separation

Volume IV: Faculty Personnel Policies

Section 4.1.0: Philosophy Statement on Faculty and Their Rights, Responsibilities, Discipline and Separation

Volume V: Academic Policies

Section 5.2.0: Philosophy Statement on Admission of Students

Section 5.4.1.0: Philosophy Statement on Academic Grievances and Issues of Academic Integrity

Section 5.6.0: Philosophy Statement on Academic Program Design, Management, and Assessment

Volume VI: Student Life Policies

Section 6.3.0: Philosophy Statement on Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Discipline

2. The Board, in reaction to the FBFI pressure, intended to dismiss the President but didn’t follow its bylaws.

At the March 30, 2022, meeting, the Executive Committee made a presentation entitled, “Board of Trustees Presentation: Overview of Accomplishments and Issues under Dr. Steve Pettit’s Leadership.” The agenda for the meeting is here.

The presentation was a surprise, and its purpose was perplexing. Was this an evaluation of the President’s performance? If so, there is a procedure that is outlined in the bylaws about how such an evaluation should be conducted.

Responsibility to Evaluate the President’s Performance: Every three (3) years, the Executive Committee, chaired by the chair of the Board, will convene during the interim board meeting to review the president’s performance. The chair will submit the report to the secretary to become a permanent part of the minutes. In evaluating the president’s performance, the Executive Committee will consider the following:

a. The president’s spiritual leadership of the student body, faculty, and staff.

b. The president’s leadership of his family.

c. The president’s leadership/acceptance among alumni.

d. The president’s leadership in fiscal matters.

e. The president’s leadership in maintaining the institution’s faithfulness to its founding purposes, its Creed, its Mission Statement, and its institutional philosophy.

f. The president’s leadership in directing those responsible for the institution’s high reputation for academic credibility.

g. The president’s leadership in overall maintenance of faculty, staff, and student morale.

After the review, the Board chair summarizes the results of the committee’s evaluation via a written report--copies of which are subsequently provided to the full Board and the president. Thereafter, the board chair will meet with the president to discuss the results of the review and performance goals for the upcoming year.

So, was this presentation to the full board in the March meeting an evaluation of the president’s performance?

1. The established criteria for evaluating the president were not followed.

2. The president was never informed that an evaluation was taking place.

3. The Chairman never met with the president to go over the evaluation that was made.

4. There was no preparation of the board that they were going to receive an evaluation. This was primarily determined by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman prior to the meeting.

President Pettit (who was, then, as President, a voting member of the Board of Trustees) was originally asked not to come to the meeting, but Dr. Pettit insisted, as a board member, that he would attend the meeting.

The EC had prepared 45 slides. Slide 39 was entitled-“Concerns.” Slides 43-44 were titled -"Method for Dismissing the President". The intention of the presentation appears to have been to make the case, in the absence of the President, and without a proper evaluation, to consider firing Dr. Steve Pettit, just a little over a month after receipt of the FBFI Letter.

3. The Board of Trustees, specifically the EC, began overreaching its authority

On March 29, 2022, the chairman of the Board of Trustees, Dr. John Lewis, asked for a meeting to discuss the Fine Arts and Trevor Lawrence issues before the full board, with the presence of the Dean of Fine Arts and the Athletic Director. Dr. Pettit responded to the request by asking what the Chairman’s intentions were and told him that he was happy to answer all questions about the issues and how the administration had acted on each of them. Such requests moved closer to committing violations of SACSCOC policies concerning the governance of boards.

4.2.b The governing board ensures a clear and appropriate distinction between the policy-making function of the board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy. (Board/administrative distinction)

Effective governance includes clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of the governing board, administration, and faculty and ensuring that each of these groups adheres to their appropriate roles and responsibilities. While it is important that the overall mission and overarching policies of the institution are approved by the board, the administration and implementation of the general direction set by the board are carried out by the administration and faculty in order to prevent the board from undercutting the authority of the president and other members of the administration and faculty, thereby creating an unhealthy and unworkable governance structure. To ensure a clear understanding of separate roles and responsibilities, the distinctions should be delineated in writing and disseminated to all appropriate constituents.

4. The Board of Trustees was being controlled by a minority of board members. Here is the SACSCOC rule:

SECTION 4: Governing Board Characteristics

The institution has a governing board of at least five members that:

(a) It is the legal body with specific authority over the institution.

(b) exercises fiduciary oversight of the institution.

(c) ensures that both the presiding officer of the board and a majority of other voting members of the board are free of any contractual, employment, personal, or familial financial interest in the institution.

(d) is not controlled by a minority of board members or by organizations or institutions separate from it.

(e) is not presided over by the chief executive officer of the institution.

There was a growing gap in board information between the Executive Committee (EC) and the full board. The Executive Committee had a normal scheduled monthly meeting where there was a presidential report, financial and enrollment report, and discussion of university business. The BJU governing bylaws state concerning Executive Committee meetings:

The Executive Committee shall meet as often as the chair, exercising sound discretion, determines is necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of the committee and the transaction of the business of the corporation and/or the University. Meetings of the Executive Committee may be convened at any time on notice by the chair of the Board, designating the time and place of such meeting. The Executive Committee shall distribute to the Board of Trustees the minutes of each committee meeting prior to the next board meeting.

The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees had a large number of meetings and conversations that took place at those meetings, in which there was a lack of communication to the full board regarding the content of these meetings for over 18 months. As of the March 29th meeting, the last available minutes of EC meetings were dated April 8, 2021. Before those minutes from 4.8.21, the next minutes available to the full board were dated November 13, 2020. Essentially, for two years, the minutes of monthly (and more) EC meetings were never made available to the full board.

Some executive meetings were moved to Dr. Bob Jones III’s residence. The Chancellor denied this. However, there was some rhetorical manipulation by denying that the meetings were held at his residence. The meetings occurred at the Jones’ residential compound. Between his residence and his office is a conjoining area that has apartments and an area that was used repeatedly by the Board of Trustees EC to meet, without minutes, accountability, or the President of the University in attendance.

If knowledge is power and the full board has the power of the university’s future in its hands, then the full board should have pertinent, up-to-date information from the Executive Committee. According to present BJU board members, this practice hasn’t changed.

5. Some of the BJU Board of Trustees demonstrated a lack of integrity.

At the August 12th meeting, Dr. Pettit was prosecuted with accusation after accusation (Two are below), and the meeting lasted for nearly 8 hours. It became obvious that if the bylaws were changed from a simple majority for renewal to a requirement of 2/3 of members to renew, it would be easier to remove Dr. Pettit.

(1) The charge of a coup.

A coup is a sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. At the August 12, 2022, meeting, there was a charge of a coup being led against the chairman. It appeared to be directed towards the executive leadership of BJU. Tim Stanley, Vice Chairman, presented this idea based on a secondary source he received from someone who had a conversation with a Vice President. The story was that Randy Page had a conversation with a VP who spoke with a golfing friend. The golfing friend came to believe that something was going to take place against the chairman of the board because of his daughter being hired by the university. The idea was that the chairman could not continue in his role if she were hired because of a stated policy in the board manual.

That policy reads:

The chair of the Board shall, at all times, be free from any contractual, employment, personal, or familial financial interest in the University.

Dr. Pettit had made a decision based on his understanding of the policy. He repeatedly checked about the interpretation that no family member of the chairman could be an employee of BJU. The three individuals who were originally involved in writing the policy (Gary Weier, Phil Gerard, and Larry Jackson) all agreed with the interpretation that the chairman’s family members could not be employees of the university. BJU’s legal counsel at the time wrote a brief on this policy that Dr. Pettit’s interpretation was correct and that the university could not hire as employees members of the chairman’s family. Joe Helm, a BJU BOT Executive Committee Member, reached out to a lawyer in Atlanta to get a rendering on the policy regarding the hiring of a child of the chairman.

The decision by Dr. Pettit and the idea of a coup were a coincidence. The rumor of a coup began in June, however, and no one from the BOT reached out to Dr. Pettit to find out if the rumor was true.

It was discovered that the way the rumor got started was when Neal Ring, the Athletic Director, had played golf with a friend at Top Golf in June, he discussed some of his frustrations over the cancellation of the Trevor Lawrence fundraiser. Neal never discussed anything about a coup. But the AD believed that the friend was likely the source of the rumor. Once Neal shared this story with Dr. Pettit, there was a meeting set up with Dr. Lewis and Tim Stanley in which Neal was able to explain things. There was a full written report, and both the chairman and the vice chairman seemed satisfied that the coup was never a thing. However, someone was lying. The story was a fabrication. The fabrication took place after Neal spoke to his friend and before the board meeting on August 12th. And, the friend who played golf with Neal Ring was the employer of the chairman’s daughter.

Dr. Pettit followed up with Dr. Lewis and Tim Stanley to confirm that there was never a coup, and that it was all a fabricated lie. He told them that he expected a letter to the full board stating that there was no coup, and that all the VPs should be vindicated from the charge that came against them. Tim Stanley said that he would write that letter. Sadly, there was never a statement from the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman repealing the idea of a coup or vindicating the reputations of the VPs.

(2) The Breach of Security

After the August 12, 2022, Board Meeting, Tim Stanley presented six varied sheets of paper he received anonymously in an envelope. The envelope had been placed in Tim’s briefcase, most likely at BJU. Those papers were the fifth president of BJU, Dr. Steve Pettit’s personal papers. The only significant sheet was the top sheet on which Dr. Pettit had written out various ways in which he believed the board had made an overreach. One point that was noted on the top paper was the concern Dr. Pettit had with moving Tim’s son, Jared, into the position of Chair of the Division of Art and Design. Dr. Pettit’s concern was that if he was moved into that position too soon to replace Jay Bopp, it could appear as a conflict of interest since his father is the Vice-Chairman. Dr. Pettit expressed that his concern was solely timing and protecting both Tim and Jared. Tim understood and accepted Dr. Pettit’s explanation.

While there was apparent personal resolution, there were more integrity issues that surrounded the incident.

-Those papers were stolen property. They could have only been taken out of Dr. Pettit’s trash can, off his desk, or left at a board meeting. In any case, they were stolen. 

-Someone took them, placed them in an envelope, and put them in Tim Stanley’s briefcase, where he found them. This most likely took place at BJU. Someone had to have known which briefcase was Tim’s, read the papers, decided to envelope them, and place them in Tim’s briefcase. This most likely happened at the April meeting because Tim discovered them in May. The motive for why all this was done is unknown, but there was intent. 

-Tim Stanley says that he discovered the envelope and read the papers in May. After reading the content, he conversed with an advisor about what to do, and the advisor encouraged him not to talk to Dr. Pettit. 

-The envelope was strategically brought out at the end of the August 12, 2022, meeting at the last part of the presentation. Tim read the top page in front of the entire board and confronted Dr. Pettit in the presence of everyone on the content concerning his son. Dr. Pettit explained the reason why he had Tim and Jared’s names on the top sheet. Tim accepted his answer and gave the envelope back to Dr. Pettit. That’s it. No one on the board said a word. 

There are multi-layered, serious issues with this situation. These were stolen papers. This was a breach of security at BJU and its leadership. Someone within the close confines of the BJU Board of Trustees, who knew whose briefcase was Tim’s, was not only a thief but had ulterior motives, intending to produce some negative effect or harm. Tim Stanley held on to these stolen papers for nearly four months and didn’t bring them out until a strategy meeting in which Dr. Pettit was confronted about a coup and his stolen papers. What is shocking is that no one questioned the integrity of this event.

It was nearing the beginning of the 2023 fall semester at BJU, and students (including my daughter) were about to show up on campus, but things were not well between the fifth POBJU and the BJU BOT.

After dropping my second child off as a freshman at BJU in August of ‘22, I received a call from my friend Kevin Inafuku. He let me know about the tension on the BJU Board of Trustees, and that the Board was considering dismissing the president or not renewing his contract. His ask for me was to consider sending some notes of support for Dr. Pettit to the BJU BOT, and to invite other BJU alumni to do the same. I was happy to. We found there was a ton of interest and momentum to support Dr. Pettit from alumni, so we began a Facebook group called BJUnited.

Of course, we were unaware that at the same time, so many alumni were sending notes of support for Dr. Pettit, that there was an emergency board meeting that Dr. Pettit had called, as he understood the situation was dire. At the meeting, Dr. Pettit:

1. Clarified the direction he had taken in leading the university over the past eight and a half years.

2. Presented an Analysis (SWOT - Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) of the current state of the University. 

3. Achieving Board Unity – His hope for the board.

4. The Leadership Team's Vision for the future of BJU.

• On October 5th, the BJU BOT met to discuss Dr. Pettit’s new contract. While there was a vote to renew on the agenda, the chairman led the board to change the bylaws to require a 2/3 vote of the board (instead of 50/50). At that moment, Dr. Pettit was essentially terminated.

• On October 14th, the chairman of the BJU BOT addressed the faculty/staff due to all the rumors that were swirling around BJU about the Pettit administration being in trouble. He did nothing to settle anyone. Instead, the speech was central to the rise of public awareness and concerns about the board's actions and apparent intentions to block Dr. Pettit’s renewal and replace him with a new president.

• October-November: The Chancellor, Dr. Bob Jones III, sent a form letter to many of us.

• On October 30- 31st, BJU Grads and Friends (initially four Greenville-area alumni) created a Facebook event inviting alumni to a Turkey Bowl Turnout to show support for Dr. Pettit’s renewal.

• November 1st: Alumnus Eric Hutton posted an open letter on BJUnited that was a call to action.

• November 1st: BJUnited and Positive BJU Grads & Friends merge as the Positive BJU Grads & Friends Page.

• November 4th: Many pastors and Christian workers co-signed an open letter to the board posted on Positive BJU’s Facebook group page.

• November 17th: At a special board meeting, the board engaged in a lengthy deliberation about the 2/3 required vote. They reviewed several letters from BJU-alumni attorneys and discussed an opinion letter prepared and presented by university attorney Miles Coleman (also a BJU alumnus), who was not invited to the board meeting but came anyway. For Mr. Coleman to gain access to the board meeting after opposition from the chairman, a motion was made and seconded to have Mr. Coleman, the university’s attorney, join them in the meeting while he was sitting just outside the room. The vote to admit the university’s lawyer passed 10-7. Seven trustees, including the chairman, voted not to admit their lawyer (Miles Coleman) to a meeting already in progress about an important university legal matter, while he was sitting just outside the room. The board ultimately decided to change the bylaws back to a 50/50 vote required to renew the president. The motion passed 9-8, with Dr. Pettit voting as a member of the board. This was, for all practical purposes, the vote to renew—and it was split right down the middle. Had the motion to return to 50/50 failed, Dr. Pettit would most likely not have been renewed. The next vote was the vote to renew the president. Ironically, immediately following the 9-8 vote just secured, the board voted 14-3 in favor of the president’s renewal.

In the board’s press release, BJU announced “overwhelming support” to extend Dr. Pettit’s contract.

Next BJU Papers: A new contract that never was and the BOT purges Pro-Pettit members.