Missouri Mess, Part 5: The Q&A

April 17th, 2007 | Posted in » Baptist Issues, In the News...

As was hinted at in my previous post (perhaps I should have stated it outright), I had heard a Q&A on the MBC’s April 10th Executive Board meeting was forthcoming, and hoped it would answer some questions in regard to the dismissal of David Clippard. At least to some extent, it has. Check it out here.

I have to ask… why in the world wasn’t this made available at the same time as the report? I know people were frustrated with the lack of information coming from the Executive Board on this (I was definitely part of that group), but shouldn’t those responsible for releasing the report have seen that putting it out there by itself would result in yet more frustration? Since this FAQ was apparently in the works, shouldn’t they have either simply held off another day in order to publish both simultaneously, or at least let everyone know it was coming? I’m still very frustrated with how this entire situation has been handled.

Anyway… thoughts on the Q&A.

One of the big questions most people (again, including me) have had was why David was not allowed to address the Board. The Q&A answers that he was aware of the report’s contents prior to the meeting, that he was approached to resign prior to the meeting, and that our MBC President believed that excluding him was important to allow for candid deliberation. The Q&A also states that after the decision was made to dismiss David, that several of the Board went to David’s office to discuss the matter with him and inform him of the decision. During that discussion, David asked why he was excluded from the meeting, and he was given reasons (presumably, those stated in the Q&A). They did not offer him the opportunity to address the Board at this point, nor did he ask to address them… somewhat understandable given that the decision to dismiss was already a done deal.

While the reasoning is now clear, I still believe that David should have been given the opportunity to address the entire Board at some point during this process. Maybe not during deliberations, but definitely during the report presentation, and probably also once the decision to dismiss him had been made.

My biggest question after reading the Q&A? Since I’m left with the impression that the lawsuit was a major issue behind the firing (I sensed this from the sanitized report, as well), I have to ask… why wasn’t this addressed by the Board way back in 2004? Or was it, and I simply missed it? What was David’s explanation for his handling of the situation? Did he misunderstand how much authority he had in handling the situation? Was he confused in what he was communicating to the Board about the suit? Is it possible he simply misunderstood the confidentiality issues? Where were the attorneys in all of this to ensure this was handled properly?

It certainly seems to me that there were mistakes made by many in this entire process. It’s entirely possible that David deserved dismissal. But I simply can’t see how the Executive Board could be without fault in this as well.

Of course, I’m just speaking as an interested observer. Hopefully everyone will learn from this and do better in the future.

The future of our convention may hinge upon it.