I have struggled, publicly, with the actions of the Executive Committee for the past few days in regards to David Clippard’s dismissal. I have been critical publicly, so now in the light of the newest information released by the EC I want to publicly state that I am more satisfied about the behavior of the EC. I am not happy with the actions, but I feel better about the activity than I had prior to the newest information being released.
In the comment section of my prior post I answered some of my questions and so in lieu of rewriting all of it I thought I would just repost it here.
1. After reading the Q & A much of my questions have been answered in regards to whether Clippard should have been fired or not. It appears to me that there were more than sufficient grounds.
2. The grounds that seemed to be sufficient can be found in regards to his treatment of the situation with Carol Kaylor. The charges that appear to be justified about his conduct in regards to the case appear to me to be a fireable offense.
3. If the above statements are true, then the firing should have happened 3 years ago and I am confused as to why it’s just now occurring? (It seems to lend itself to the “witch hunt” theory that I speak about in greater detail below.)
4. I am still not satisfied with the seemingly inequitable treatment of Clippard in regards to the treatment of the other rumors that the group researched. There should have been, it seems to me, further repercussions than just the firing of Clippard.
5. I am still unsatisfied, to a degree, with the behavior of the board in the method used to dismiss Clippard. I am of the opinion that it was poorly handled, poorly communicated to the public and much should have been done differently. It saddens me that there has been significant negative and saddening dialogue that has come about, not necessarily because Clippard was fired, but because of how he was fired.
6. I still have reason to doubt the behavior of the EC due to the resignation of Dr. Cogdill. Dr. Cogdill is one of the men in Missouri who I really do trust and his resignation and the reasons behind it continue to give me pause in regards to convention leadership. I do appreciate the Q & A’s honest assessment of Cogdill’s opinions, but I’m afraid that I find myself more sympathetic to him than I do the rest of the EC.
In conclusion I will say that I am more relieved about the dismissal of Clippard tonight than I anticipated being. At the same time there are still questions in regards to behavior that need to be addressed. I would be ashamed to see this kind of event happen in this kind of way every again.
One additional note that I would add is that I agree with David Kaster, who commented on the last post, that what may concern me more than anything is what appears to be an overeager approach to dismissing Clippard. The nonchalant, easy attitude that appeared to be directed towards the other “rumors” in contrast to the fervor with which Clippard has been approached over the past months/years seems to be out of balance with each other.
In conclusion I certainly hope that we can put this activity behind us and grow in unity, grace and faith as a convention under new leadership – but to be totally frank – I am doubtful as to that end. We are in need of outside leadership, I believe. I would have really liked to have seen an “intentional interim” of sorts from outside of the state. That seems to be largely impossible at this point so we can hope for the best under the new leadership.