A letter, signed by Board Chairman Scott Mitchell and Vice Chairman Joe Patrick, is being distributed to the Erskine and Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church communities that announces the formation of a “subgroup” to “increase understanding and seek resolution” of the situation that has developed in recent months.
“Many of you are aware of and very concerned about the complicated situation at Erskine College and Seminary,” the letter said. “There are serious challenges that cannot be ignored, even in the short run, if Erskine is to fulfill her missions to provide an excellent liberal arts education in a Christ-centered environment and to educate persons for service in the Christian Church.”
The letter points out that the Board of Trustees, as it was constituted prior to the March 3 action of the General Synod, has the authority to act as Erskine’s Board per a preliminary injunction ordered by Circuit Court Eugene C. Griffith on April 9. The General Synod has since appealed that order.
The Executive Committee met on Friday, April 23, to “address the immediate issues confronting Erskine.”
The letter said all members of the Executive Committee were in attendance.
“In our meeting, we had trustees who would have served on the Interim Board that General Synod named, had it been seated, and we had trustees who would have been removed and not seated on the Interim Board,” the letter said. “We had in that meeting one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and one of the members of the Executive Board of the General Synod who had also served on the Moderator’s Commission.
“The meeting was marked by a spirit of unity,” the letter continued. “Our prayer is that this unity can be extended to include others involved in the dispute.”
Rick Hendricks, director of marketing and public relations for Erskine, said the letter conveyed no desire by the Executive Committee to intervene in the ongoing legal process that is also attempting to resolve the matter on the basis of fact and law.
“The chairman and vice chairman indicate there will be no attempt by the subgroup of the Executive Committee to ask either side to take unilateral actions that would weaken their position, but hope part of reconciliation can take the form of an agreement between the parties that would involve a settlement of the legal matters,” Hendricks said.
The letter states that it is hoped that the process can begin quickly and be completed in such a manner that Erskine can move forward.
“We pray that all involved in the situation will open their hearts to the possibility of resolution and reconciliation,” the letter said. “We also pray that all who are involved will refrain from actions that would make resolution and reconciliation more difficult. In particular, we hope that all would refrain from attacks on individuals or a group who may indeed be trying their best to do what they think is right.”
Hendricks said the activities of the college and seminary are continuing on track, culminating with commencement activities on May 14-15.
“The chairman and the vice chairman have solicited our prayers and support for this effort and I think we can all agree that doing so can only benefit Erskine in the future,” Hendricks said.
The next step in the legal process rests with the S.C. Court of Appeals, he said.
The court action taken by Richard Taylor, Parker Young, J. David Chesnut and the Alumni Association came after the General Synod’s approval of measures that included removal of 14 trustees from the Erskine College and Seminary Board, establishing an interim Board, which has not been seated, revisions to the Board bylaws and changes in the Board nomination process.
The attorneys for the General Synod have filed a motion in Court of Common Pleas in Abbeville, asking for the complaint filed by Taylor, Young, Chesnut and the alumni association to be dismissed.
The General Synod is also asking the S.C. Court of Appeals to “suspend or modify” the preliminary injunction that is being appealed. The attorneys for the Board members and the alumni association have 10 days to respond to the motion.
In the motion to suspend or modify the preliminary injunction, the General Synod asks for the preliminary injunction to be “vacated, or modified to remove constitutionally offensive provisions.”
The document claims the preliminary injunction should be vacated or modified to “remove vague and ambiguous provisions.” Lastly, the action asks for the preliminary injunction to be vacated for “failure to provide the required bond or suspended until the required bond is posted.”
— Erskine College office of public relations
