The deadline for submission of “letters of interest” was set for May 9–three days after three incumbent members of the Board were to face re-election on May 6. Two of these (Teddy Bohnencamp and Wally Fitch) were subsequently defeated at the polls. In a three-way race, 62% of those voting voted against incumbent Bohnencamp. By May 8, Bohnencamp had declared her intention to seek appointment to the Board, hoping to move into Scott’s at-large seat (after surrendering her own).
Eleven other candidates also submitted “letters of interest.” Without even a day’s notice to any of the applicants, the Board met on May 20, announced that “the three most sincere candidates” would be interviewed and then a decision made. The interviews consisted of one question each and took less than five minutes. Bohnencamp was interviewed last. Just minutes later, the Board voted unanimously to appoint her to complete Scott’s unexpired term, fourteen days after the public had denied her another term at the ballot box.
So, Jim, what’s the point? Well, I was one of the 11 other citizens who submitted a “letter of interest,” after prayerful and thoughtful reflection. Here’s my story:
When I was called to lead this congregation, I was given a license—a mandate, really—from the church’s leadership to become engaged with the larger community, to be a voice for the common good, to be salt and light. To that end, I have been a member of the governing boards of agencies like United Way, Hopewell Center, and the Community Health Network in Indianapolis; I have served as Board Chair at Anderson’s Community Hospital. I represented 74,000 people in northwest Seattle in the Washington State legislature (before moving to Indiana) and have a long history providing leadership in many other religiously affiliated and charitable organizations. I am the Chair of the India Gospel League (NA), which will this year educate 300,000 children in India. I was the founding pastor of the Fairview Christian School in Seattle; my family has filled many leading volunteer roles in ACSC. And, oh yeah, we raised our four sons in Anderson Community Schools. I may not have been the best candidate, but I was credible.
When the process of appointment unfolded without even rudimentary contact or any substantive public review—I felt like someone had to stand up and say something. If I can be so easily dismissed, what happens to others who have less standing or no platform from which to speak? Teddy Bohnencamp is a good woman; I believe she has our school system’s best interest at heart. Still, some questions must be asked. Who established the May 9 deadline for applicants, following the May 6 election? Was it a “parachute” for potentially vulnerable incumbents? Did the Board develop a framework for appointment, following Scott’s resignation? If so, why weren’t any of the candidates or the larger public informed? If not, why not? Is serving on the school board so incidental that no thoughtful process needs to be crafted and implemented? Why weren’t applicants contacted before May 20? Why wasn’t receipt of their “letters of interest” acknowledged? Does anyone in the ACSC comprehend how compromising the whole sad chapter appears?
The ACSC Board holds in its hands our future. No group of persons requires more moral authority, wisdom, or the ability to inspire a community-wide collaboration than this group does. The appointment of Bohnencamp has become the “poster child” for many other weak links in our public education chain. The most important step the Board can now take to strengthen that chain is to provide clear, unequivocal answers to the questions above. They have declined to do so since first posed in person (and by letter) on June 10. Incredibly, the Board unanimously elected Bohnencamp its new President on July 8. The woman turned out of office on May 6 is now the Board President, without any explanation to the public, except: “Everything done has been legal, ethical, and fair.” Board member P. T. Morgan, alone, has gone on record expressing regret for his part in this debacle.
I have no personal issues with any member of the Board. But, the Board’s conduct has been so deeply flawed, its blank stare in the face of public skepticism, its unwillingness to even address the questions its course has birthed, and its apparent intention to proceed as if nothing problematic has occurred, seats us all at a kind of Mad Hatter’s Tea Party at which down is up and the obvious is ignored. New, fundamental concerns about how ACSC is governed spring to life each week that passes under this shadow. And that should concern all of us.
Pray. Get involved. Pay attention. Be encouraged. Speak the truth in love. Jesus
7 comments:
You may be “Speaking the Truth in Love” as you see it and there may very well been “Corruption” in the selection of the Board but is a “Church Newsletter” the arena to air your objections? No offense, but really, you just sound like a “Sore Looser”!
You have voiced your questions in person and by letter “Why air your gripes to the church”? If I am a Christian attending your church reading the Newsletter I should be reading “News” about the “Church” and related activities not your personal outrage because “You” were rejected, after all, you listed all your qualifications (of which I am not the least bit interested).
In this town of low employment to have “credentials” whether experience wise or social wise is irrelevant! Like when your wife was hired to work as the Mayor’s Secretary after it had been “promised” to others. It’s who you “know” or what “political position” you have or how your “social standing could benefit” not being qualified. Neither does seniority have any reflection on local city and government positions you just happen to be on the back side this time. This kind of stuff has been going on for years the only difference is “You” are now involved. Fine, but settle your score outside the church. Jesus never complained to the church about being treated unfairly concerning corrupt hiring practices in a carpenter’s position. In fact, I do not recall Him ever complaining at all about any of His unjust treatment. Did He point out sin? Absolutely! But, mainly, He was just “BEING JESUS”!
Hi Anonymous;
I appreciate reading your thoughts and suspect that there were others that may have had similar questions. I would like to respond to your concerns, if I may, as one congregant at MPCHOG.
Your first expressed concern was that the church newsletter was an improper forum for Pastor Lyon’s concerns. In his fourth paragraph He noted that the church had given him a license and perhaps even a mandate to be salt and light in our community and therefore to be engaged with it. While he was making a point about his credentials, I think if the church directs him to do this, it is within his legitimate options to report to the church at large (in the newsletter, even) about how he is handling that mandate. In this essay, he reports both on the way he, trying to see with a Biblical and city-supportive vision, views concerns that need to be addressed as well as his efforts to do so. Further, Jim has frequently spoken with hope and positive vision for this community from the pulpit, promoting efforts to support improved employment and opportunities and growth here in Anderson. He has also supported the public school system in those comments and in his model (not sending his kids to a private school). Ultimately, this is not a new topic for Pastor Lyon – it is just new that he is pointing to a problem rather than expressing support. However, I think he has expressed sufficient support to have earned the right to be heard regarding a problem.
You express that Jim sounded like a sore loser. I can’t argue with your impression as it is yours, but my impression wasn’t that his issue was that he wasn’t made part of the board – but that someone the voters directly rejected was put back on the board despite the availability of qualified applicants. He provided himself as one example of at least one qualified applicant that was not considered. But I read the main point as being the disrespect shown to voters to sabotage the elective process in the ACS Boards actions when there were legitimate other options available. One knows one’s own qualification best, and I understood him to be making the point that the board doesn’t appear to be making their choices due to qualifications as he was amply qualified yet wasn’t even considered. I suspect if a third applicant, someone qualified and not rejected already by the voters, had been brought onto the board, we wouldn’t have heard about this at all. I don’t know anything about any of the applicants or the educational system nor do I have an ax to grind with the ACS school board, but the basic assumption of the election process is that the will of the voters prevail. In appointing someone rejected by voters when other qualified candidates were available, the board displayed a profound disrespect for the will of the voters, for the voting citizen.
If I understand your third point correctly, you were expressing that often employment, particularly in government, is not made based on qualifications but on connection. While that may be true, it neither makes it good, nor is it usually something that happens for elected positions – the position involved in this case was an elected position temporarily filled in a way that the voters had already rejected. I am not familiar with whether or not Maureen Lyon’s position was promised to someone else, but it would seem that if it was, your issue is with her boss, not her nor Pastor Lyon. It is my understanding that her job is not an elected position, and not one that she had been rejected for by the voters. Further, while I think the Lyon’s addressed her job publicly to try to help us understand that it wasn’t a political statement because of their love for the church, ultimately unless a pastor’s wife is employed in a blatantly immoral (bank robber, prostitute, etc.) type of job which might display family problems that disqualify him for leadership, I don’t see how it is the church’s business where she works. She’s not the church’s employee and we need to respect her and treat her as we would want to be treated. I would not want my employment situation at each place in my life to be evaluated and discussed by each church member – and I suspect no one would. The correlate in this situation is that I didn’t hear Pastor Lyon blaming Teddy Behnencamp, (and in fact he expressed respect for her heart’s intent for the schools) but those that made the choice, the ACS board.
I read your final point to be that you felt Pastor was not being Christ-like in expressing his concerns. You noted that Jesus pointed out sin but you “did not recall Him ever complaining at all about his unjust treatment.” I guess that goes back to my third paragraph and whether you see Jim’s point being the slap in the face to the voting public (pointing out sin) or whining that he didn’t get the role (complaining). I think we differ in impressions on this issue – and while I think his essay is clearly about the disingenuousness of the school board, part of our difference on this is based on assumptions about Jim’s heart. None of us can know another’s heart absolutely, but I did wonder (because you don’t make it clear) if you are someone who attends the church who has heard him repeatedly express his heart Sunday after Sunday. I have heard him express hopes to bring out the best for both our church and for the Anderson community week after week. I have come to respect Pastor Lyon as a man of profound vision for each person, for our church, and for Anderson – and even for me personally in Christ when I have lost sight of that vision.
Two other things struck me when I read Jim’s essay. First, a pastor’s life has plenty of controversy and conflict when they aren’t brave; I respect that he is willing to make himself a target of even more criticism by risking this public statement. Further, he not only expresses his concerns, he is willing to sign his name and therefore “take the heat.” Secondly, that he must care strongly about the ACS system to have been willing to take another commitment when no pastor really has quite enough time in the day. It isn’t that I think he is perfect nor do I always agree with him (ask him! ) nor am I confusing him with Christ in any way….but someone who is a public whiner? No, that just isn’t what I have seen in him in these 10 years I have attended North/Madison Park.
While I disagree with you, anonymous writer, about his message and intent, I appreciate you expressing your concerns and hope you continue to read and think as I will strive to do. Perhaps regardless of position we take on the Pastor’s column, we both need to ask ourselves what we are doing to change our selves and change our world for the better. I suspect that is why he sent the column to us as the Church – to prompt our continued work at our own sanctification through our functioning as Christ in the redemption of our community. We are to be salt and light as well as the pastor.
Respectfully,
Pam Shafer
Any parent of children in this broken school system knows this whole entire system is broken. Save our schools (SOS) Has made slow progress towards making things better. We live 1 mile away from H.H.S. but our kids our bused to the other end of town for a total of 1 hour and 10 min of fuel for school buses to transport our kids to A.H.S. at tax payers exspence. We tried to get a inter-school transfer and the school board shot us down 2 times. Now if you fight them on any thing and lose you pay everything. Just like the Bells. It is wrong and very corrupt. We will cont. to pray for a better future for our grand kids and support 100% to all sore loosers who tried to make Anderson a better place to live. God bless you Mr. Lyons you have our love and support. SOS SOS SOS SOS.....Thank You, Keith Smith
8-26-08
Thanks Pam, for your input in defense of your Pastor. I had not intended on commenting again but I thought you might want to hear from me. It further convinces me that the Newsletter is not the forum for this controversial issue. My comments were directed more at Pastor Lyon than anyone else since he wrote it. From someone who is not close to him it is not my business to know the personal issues. I Remember reading this blog once before and someone had written, “What does that have to do with the Bible”, and another one said, “I am tired of hearing about Seattle”. I did not think much about it at the time. Although, upon reading this issue, I was very disappointed because I to had a great respect for him and it seemed basically beneath him handling it in this way.
As far as the “mandate” of the church, it could be interpreted in a variety of ways; pointing out specific names and circumstances it sounded as if a “crime has been committed”. The argument Pastor Lyon is addressing could be better directed to proper authorities that “can do” something about it. He is very knowledgeable and I am sure he can call for an investigation or whatever is appropriate and handle it in his own way rather than before the Church. If it was “sin” in the Church of course that should be handled with the Church. That’s my opinion which did not have to be expressed at all if there were no forum such as this that allows people the “freedom” to speak frankly and had I not read a public account of Pastor Lyon’s grievances. Maybe the Herald Bulletin would be a better place to state his feelings.
Oh, and as for Maurine I think she’s a wonderful person but that was only mentioned because it was an “example” of promises made without consideration and then hiring someone else. Nothing personal but her position was also made known in a newsletter format that I read one time, that’s why it seemed to be fair to use it along with the other things I pointed out. By the way I was not the person that was promised a job and I do not sign my name because you would not know me from Adam (also I do not want to be hunted down because I have a different view) and I would rather you considered the “message” not the “messenger”. I believe that is what this venue is all about.
I know you are loyal and devoted but you need to realize those that are not in the circle of Pastor Lyon’s close friends will judge him more definitively and if taking on the “system” is something he can do I am sure there is a place for it.
Hi Anonymous –
Thanks for your thoughts once again. A few responses:
Whether you sign or not, that is fine - but please know that I would not trying to track you down in any negative or destructive way. I am open to further discussion if you have interest; I think it is hard to decide when and when not to confront a wrong one is aware of it and how it should best be done for all of us - and even harder, what to do when you have taken proper measures and haven't gotten a response. I also think there are times when anonymity can be helpful - but I think there are fewer of those situations than I did when I was younger - so that is okay. :-) I just know it takes extra courage to sign the name - I have done these blogs both ways at times.
I have not yet seen Pastor Lyon answer criticism in this forum. He usually just lets his original thoughts stand. However, since it is a written discussion forum, I think anyone can respond to either the original essay or to a response – so both our responses are legitimate. As I believe we as Christians are to be involved in our world and communities, and therefore even political things like school boards and elections, I thought it important to provide an alternative viewpoint to your expressed concerns. I think both our responses are acceptable in this forum. I also see the discussion itself as good, so for me it doesn’t change my thinking about the newsletter/blog forum being appropriate for his concerns, particularly since Jim had not gotten more of a response from the ACS board than an “Everything we did was legal, ethical, and fair”.
I only addressed Pastor Lyon’s intent because you questioned it in referring to him as a “sore loser”. That phrase points to heart issues, which is why I commented on those. I have heard Pastor make jokes about inconveniences, but not seriously make complaints to the congregation about issues, particularly in a whining or sore loser type of way.
I don’t think what the school board did was a “crime” but it was profoundly disrespectful to the voting public. It violated the spirit of representative democracy to first appoint then elect president someone who the voters had rejected for service on the board. It may have been legal to the letter of the law but I don’t believe it was ethical to violate the intent of the law.
Jim Lyon did name the name of the person appointed as he couldn’t explain the situation without doing so, but he noted her to be a “good woman” with the school’s “best interests at heart”. This didn’t feel like a personal attack on her but instead an expression of concerns about the board.
Jim had gone in person and in writing and expressed his concerns to the board with only the response noted above. He had taken proper steps previously before making a public statement. Is there any other way to challenge the ACS board besides personally asking, writing, then getting the voters that one has contact with involved? (If there is, someone please blog and say what it is!) Who is above the board to do “something about it”? I know of no one save voters themselves. I think Jim has the freedom to write the newspaper - but given his mandate from church leadership, he also has the freedom to address this in the newsletter. I suspect, Anonymous, that we differ on this primary assumption, that the church (and therefore its newsletter) is about all of life, not just formal “religious” issues.
Finally, I am not in Pastor Lyon’s “circle of close friends”. He knows who I am first because I ask lots of questions about his sermons and about life, mostly on email. Later, I have occasionally sought his counsel on personal issues. I am mostly taking from what he has said from the pulpit for the implications regarding his motives.
I do understand that others may criticize Jim for this stand; I also understand that I am within my freedom to provide a different way of looking at the situation in response. Being Christian does not make us second class citizens in participating in the important discussions of our community and of our world. There are few things more important than what and how children are taught – and therefore who controls what and how children are taught. Further, I think this discussion itself is important (and good) as it is about how we as Christians are to apply Christ’s Lordship in our lives by how we interact with the community.
Interesting to read your follow up comments, even though I still disagree, but that is okay. Please know that I am fine with your commenting here even though I disagree; perhaps this discussion will prompt someone to really interact with how we are to be salt and light in our world, in the different circles each of us moves in within our community...and to take action on it. For Pastor Lyon in this season of life he apparently has a passion for public education, for you and I in our current seasons of life it is may be another piece of life. At any rate, it is only through sorting through conflict that deeper and usually better solutions come forth, and I am delighted to hear from you again.
take care.....pam
Pam Shafer
Dietrich Bonhoeffer took on the anti-semitic policies of Adolf Hitler while pastor of the Confessing Church. If his church had a Newsletter, I'm sure he was including articles about activities protesting the treatment of the Jewish population. Although not on the same level, Jim's mandate to be salt and light to our community is now less in need of expression. The United States Constitution was written by religious men who were counting on the religious leaders of the future to be the watchdogs for corruption. A corrupt democracy will be it's own downfall. All of us should open our eyes and be aware of what is happening in our own back yard.
If there were church newsletters in pre-civil war days, would a pastor have been using an inappropriate forum to write against the Dred Scott decision of the supreme court that ruled a black to not be a person? That supreme court decision violated both the spirit of the founding documents (Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence) as well as being just plain wrong from a moral (and scientific) viewpoint. To have NOT addressed it with God's people would be been a sin. While certainly the ACS board is smaller scale, the issues are similar in considering appropriate forums for addressing injustice.
Post a Comment