bgav governance study committee report

8/12/2019 BGAV Governance Study Committee Report

1/10


2/10

-2-

6. Strategic leadership, in persons and organizational structure, for our various Virginia

Baptist mission efforts, and7. Broad, fair representation of those who cooperate together to accomplish our various

Virginia Baptist mission efforts.

The composition of the Governance Study Committee reflects those values because the committeemembers bring decades of experience and service across the BGAV. In fact, each Study Committee

member has served on the Mission Board, itself, in some capacity. Through their contacts and

networks, committee members consulted many others to help the committee discern the issues that theBGAV must address to more effectively manage the mission resources and opportunities God has

entrusted to Virginia Baptists.

Five Issues the BGAV Must AddressIn consultation with other Virginia Baptist leaders, the committee identified five issues and

shared them in a white paper the committee released to The Religious Heraldand dispersed widely.

We offered that if Virginia Baptists want to manage our mission resources more effectively andefficiently, we must address these issues:

1. The current VBMB structure is too large to function effectively and efficiently, a matter of

Virginia Baptists stewardship of both resources and opportunities.2. The current structure does not ensure a diversity of VBMB members or skills needed to act

effectively on behalf of the BGAV between its annual meetings.

3. The current governing process scatters the strategic functions of managing our missionresources across several bodies (e.g., VBMB, Executive Committee, Budget Committee,

etc.).

4. The current VBMB structure leads to a divided, rather than a united, view of our Baptist

work by dividing VBMB members into groups that mirror the VBMB staff structure.5. The current nominating process does not ensure the churches that strongly support the

BGAV (e.g., by total or per capita gifts) take part in its governance.

The Committee Asked Many Virginia Baptists about The Issues

Proverbs 15:22 says, Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

The committee wanted to confirm that it understood the key issues correctly. Members also wanted tohear ideas from the collective wisdom of leaders across the entire spectrum of Virginia Baptist life.

We initiated a series of meetings and created other, less formal opportunities for comment, as well.

# Members of the committee met first with the Virginia Network of Association Workers

during its annual VNAW meeting. Association workers conceived of two bodies, onelarger body and one smaller body, that would help preserve some of the strengths of our

current management system. Some association workers also suggested the idea that a

leader(s) in each association would ask current VBMB members to discuss the five issues

among themselves. We asked association leaders to encourage those conversations in theirrespective associations.

# The committee made an effort to connect with Virginia Baptists in our southwestern region.The committee chair attended the Appalachian Pastor/Staff and Spouse Retreat at Marion

Baptist Church, and that meeting produced two additional ideas. First, the larger body

envisioned by the association workers should be both large and diverse enough to broadly

represent the whole Virginia Baptist family. The second idea produced a name for thatbody, the Virginia Baptist Mission Council.


3/10

-3-

# Committee members met with VBMB staff members to hear their ideas, too. That meeting

produced the idea of adding a general cluster to represent BGAV churches not included inthe seven geographic regional clusters we currently recognize.

# In another meeting, committee members conferred with leaders of the various BGAV

agencies and institutions. They unanimously affirmed a simplified management process,something which more nearly resembles their own governance structures.

# The committee concluded this series of meetings by inviting a group of BGAV Past

Presidents to confer with them and receive their input. The Past Presidents wereenthusiastic about the proposed changes, and suggested that members of the smaller body

be ineligible to serve for a span of three years after completing their terms.

# The committee Chair met with the VBMB Executive Committee on September 17, 2013, to

formally present the committees proposal. The Executive Committee affirmed the planoverwhelmingly, then voted to recommend it to the full Mission Board for presentation to

the BGAV at its 2013 annual meeting. The Executive Committee did amend the

Governance Committees proposal to allow that one of the five members nominated forelection to the governing board each year may be chosen by the board itself apart from any

other nominating process (this process will be described later in this document).

# The Committee Chair, Vice-Chair, and one other committee member met with the fullVBMB on October 8 and 9, 2013, to formally offer its proposal for approval and

subsequent presentation to the BGAV at its annual meeting. The full Mission Board

discussed the proposal thoroughly, then voted overwhelminglywith only one voteagainstto recommend the new governance structure to the General Association on

November 12 and 13, 2013, in Fredericksburg.

During these meetings with significant components of the Virginia Baptist family, we noted a

consistent theme: key BGAV leaders were most concerned about efficiency and effectiveness, whileeveryone else was more concerned with broad and fair representation. We determined early on that

any structure we might recommend would need to satisfy both of these concerns.

A Possible Form for Better Governance

We say again, if Virginia Baptists want to manage our mission resources more effectively and

efficiently while retaining broad representation, we have to address these issues:1. The current VBMB structure is too large to function effectively and efficiently, a matter of

Virginia Baptists stewardship of both resources and opportunities.

2. The current structure does not ensure a diversity of VBMB members or skills needed to act

effectively on behalf of the BGAV between its annual meetings.3. The current governing process scatters the strategic functions of managing our mission

resources across several bodies (e.g., VBMB, Executive Committee, Budget Committee,

etc.).

4. The current VBMB structure leads to a divided, rather than a united, view of our Baptistwork by dividing VBMB members into groups that mirror the staff structure.

5. The current nominating process does not ensure the churches that strongly support theBGAV (e.g., by total or per capita gifts) take part in its governance.

Our recommendation seeks to address each of these issues in compliance with our Constitution and

Bylaws. Accordingly, we envision a two-body system that would divide the

informational/promotional and oversight functions of the current board. Structured correctly so that asmaller, oversight body would be nominated mostly by and consult with a larger, broader

representative body, such a system should ensure both effectiveness and full representation.


4/10


5/10

-5-

Issue 3. While the current governing process scatters the strategic functions of governance

across several bodies (e.g., Mission Board, Executive Committee, Budget Committee, etc.), theproposed two-body system would help to streamline it. Some might express concern that this would

put too much power in the hands of the smaller body. However, we think its connection to the larger

body would ensure appropriate accountability and help unite strategic oversight functions to facilitatethe entire systems focus on all of the mission efforts to which God calls us.

Issue 4. The committee members and others observe that the current Mission Board structureleads to a divided, rather than a united, view of our Baptist work by dividing Board members into

groups that mirror the VBMB staff structure. If they function as suggested by us and others, the two

bodies would work together in a more unified and efficient way and the VBMB staff would be freed to

do so, as well. We believe it is absolutely essential that the smaller oversight board, in particular,attend always to the interests and well-being of the whole Virginia Baptist enterprise rather than being

divided along the lines of its separate functions.

Issue 5. Regarding the issue that the current nominating process does not ensure the churches

that strongly support the BGAV (e.g., by total or per capita gifts) take part in its governance, we

propose a new way of extending a call to Virginia Baptists to share their gifts and skills with theBGAV. In consultation with the smaller body, the larger body would consider a variety of factors in

choosing its nominees for election to the smaller body by the BGAV, including demonstrated

commitment to the work of the General Association. The larger body should ensure that it nominatessome persons from those local churches that show strong commitment through their considerable

financial support. This would add a new and important factor to the list of possible ways to describe a

person who might serve as one of the people who offer guidance, help oversee mission resources, and

interpret Gods work in Virginia Baptist life.

The Proposed StructureTwo New Bodies

The BGAV Governance Study Committee proposes that the BGAV amend its Constitution andBylaws to create two new bodies. The Virginia Baptist Mission Council, the larger body, would

consist of 110-120 members. It would bear some similarities to the current VBMB in its composition

and would be characterized by broad representation from across Virginia Baptist life.The Virginia Baptist Executive Board, the smaller body, would consist of 20 members (15

rotating members, the BGAV President and the two Vice Presidents, the Executive Director, and the

Treasurer). It would bear some similarities to the current VBMB Executive Committee and would be

characterized by competence in oversight.The BGAV is a general association of local churches. The Virginia Baptist Mission Council

would be elected by and accountable to the BGAV and, thereby, its local churches. The same would

be true of the Virginia Baptist Executive Board, which would be expected always to act in the best

interest of our associated local churches. Therefore, we propose that each body have a directconnection to the BGAV, nominating members as part of their respective reports during the BGAV

Annual Meeting. We think this essential to preserving the unique contributions of each body in bettermanaging our mission resources.

The Purposes, Roles, and Functions of the Mission Council and Executive Board

The Virginia Baptist Mission Councilwould provide timely counsel to the Virginia Baptist

Executive Boardand to the VBMB staff through the Executive Director, serving as the sounding

board of the Virginia Baptist family. Mission Council members would thus serve as liaisons who


6/10

-6-

communicatefromchurches and associations and ambassadors who communicate tochurches and

associations. The Executive Board, the BGAV Executive Director, and appropriate Mission Boardstaff would consult with the Mission Council regularly and intentionally. The Mission Council

members would also perform the key task of helping to identify potential Virginia Baptist servant

leaders.We foresee that the Mission Council would have a joint meeting with the Executive Board

every spring at which the Mission Council would propose up to fifteen possible nominees, as needed,

from which the Executive Board could choose in making any necessary nominations for election to theBoard by the BGAV at the Annual Meeting. Those nominees must come from participating

churches in good standing with the BGAV as defined by the BGAV Constitution and as verified by

the BGAV Executive Director and Treasurer. Those proposed by the Mission Council should include

persons who reflect the various gifts and skills needed for the Executive Board to function effectivelyand who, inasmuch as possible, reflect the diversity of the BGAV's member churches.

The Executive Board would have to choose four of its five nominees to the BGAV for election

to the Board from those fifteen persons suggested, ensuring that the Executive Board would in no waybe self-perpetuating. (So, the Executive Board would have the freedom to choose one of its five

nominees apart from those fifteen names suggested by the Mission Council if it so desired, as per the

Mission Board Executive Committee amendment introduced earlier.) The Executive Board wouldnominate persons who have the various gifts and skills needed for the Executive Board to function

effectively and who, inasmuch as possible, reflect the diversity of BGAV churches in the total

composition of the Executive Board. Both Mission Council members and Executive Board memberswould serve as ambassadors, sharing the news of God's work across the BGAV with its local churches.

As proposed, the Virginia Baptist Executive Boardwould combine strategically the strengths

of the present VBMB Executive and the BGAV Budget Committees. The VBMB Executive

Committee has the authority to act in the interim for the VBMB, serve as its Finance Committee,advise and consult with the executive director, study and recommend changes to the Constitution

and Bylaws of the General Association and the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation of the VBMB,

and study and recommend ways to strengthen the work of the General Association (VBMB Bylaws,Article VII, Section 2). The Executive Board would serve as the fiduciary for the BGAV, including

preparing and submitting the proposed budget for action by the BGAV at the Annual Meeting, and

acting in its behalf between BGAV annual meetings. The Executive Board would serve as the body towhich the BGAV Executive Director and Treasurer and all other VBMB staff members would relate

(through the Executive Director). As previously stated, the Executive Board would nominate persons

for election to the Executive Board at the BGAV Annual Meeting. Since members of the Executive

Board would rotate off of the governing body after proscribed terms, it would be necessary to electnew members regularly.

A Plan for Making the Transition

How will the BGAV establish the Virginia Baptist Mission Council? The committeeproposes that the current VBMB members complete their respective terms as the first members of the

Mission Council. Once the Mission Council has been established, it would structure itself according tothe seven geographic regional clusters now identified by the VBMB staff plus a general cluster of

churches that fall outside of the seven regional clusters. The Executive Director would assign VBMB

staff members who, assisted by association leaders in that region, would facilitate regional cluster

group meetings. We suggest that these regional cluster groups meet to choose nominees to theMission Council at the BGAV Annual Meeting during a time set aside for this purpose in the program.


7/10

-7-

The BGAV would receive nominations from the regional and general clusters on Day 1 of each BGAV

Annual Meeting, and vote to seat the new Mission Council members on Day 2 of each meeting.As the current VBMB members conclude their terms, each regional cluster would nominate

five persons to serve one three-year term on the Mission Council, a total of fifteen over three years,

with the first new members of the Mission Council beginning their terms in 2015. Each year theseven regional clusters would nominate a total of 35 persons (five per cluster per year) for election at

the BGAV Annual Meeting.

The general cluster, comprised of churches outside the seven regional clusters, would follow asimilar pattern, except that it would nominate only two persons for the Mission Council each year.

This number of representatives could be adjusted in years to come as those who affiliate with the

BGAV from beyond the Commonwealth increase in number. For that matter, clusters could be added

or subtracted as needed should the constituency of the BGAV change.The BGAV President (or Vice President in the absence of the President) and Clerk would serve

on the Mission Council. The BGAV President would convene and chair a meeting of the Mission

Council each spring, probably held at Eagle Eyrie, that would include at least one joint session withthe Executive Board. The Clerk, much as now, would keep a record of attendance and minutes of the

Mission Council meetings. The Mission Council would hear from the Executive Board regarding the

gifts and skills it needs in its members and propose a list of possible nominees for the ExecutiveBoards consideration. The BGAV would assume the costs of hosting this meeting, though Mission

Council members would be responsible for the arrangements and expenses of their own transportation

to the meeting. The first meeting would take place in the spring of 2015, anticipating that the BGAVwould have amended its Constitution and Bylaws to create the two new bodies.

How will the BGAV establish the Virginia Baptist Executive Board? Convened by the

current BGAV President, the living former BGAV Presidents would nominate ten persons for electionat the 2014 BGAV Annual Meeting, none of whom could be from their own number. As designated

by the Presidents, five of them would serve one three-year term without possibility of reelection for the

span of three additional years. Five more would serve one three-year term with the possibility ofreelection for one additional three-year term and, after that, without the possibility of reelection for the

span of three additional years. The Mission Council would then propose fifteen persons, five of whom

would be chosen by the outgoing VBMB Executive Committee for nomination to the BGAV. Onceelected, these last five Mission Board members would serve for one three-year term with the

possibility of reelection for two additional three-year terms and, after that, without the possibility of

reelection for the span of three additional years. This would establish an ongoing pattern of electing

Mission Board members for up to three, three-year terms, after which each would be ineligible forelection to the board for three years. This follows a similar model to other boards that serve Virginia

Baptist interests (e.g., the Baptist Extension Board), providing continuity of leadership and sustaining

institutional memory while also allowing for the energy of new leadership.

This process would provide the initial fifteen Executive Board members. The current BGAVPresident and Vice Presidents would also serve on the Executive Board. In addition, the BGAV

Executive Director and Treasurer would serve by virtue of office without voting rights, so theExecutive Board would be comprised of twenty members (eighteen voting). Should a Board member

be unable to complete any three-year term for any reason, the Executive Board would be required to

choose a nominee to fill the unexpired term from those names suggested by the Mission Council.

The BGAV President would convene the very first Executive Board meeting. As its first orderof business, the Executive Board would then elect a chair from its number to assume those duties

immediately. Once established, the Executive Board and its chair would assume responsibility for


8/10

-8-

conducting all of its future meetings. The committee foresees six Executive Board meetings per year,

to be held every other month, including the joint meeting with the Mission Council each spring.

Our Historic Virginia Baptist Values Have Driven the Committees Work

As stated before, from the beginning, our committee has conducted its work according to sevenbiblical values Virginia Baptists have always cherished. These are the same values that previous

generations sought to incarnate in the various governance structures they employed throughout our

history, each new structure suited to each new era of advancing the Redeemers Kingdom. Webelieve our work not only reflects, but even reveals those same values for a new era and a new

generation of Virginia Baptists.

For example, we value transparency and accountability in our assigned task. We have spoken

with one united voice. From the white paper we released last spring to our consultation with multiplegroups of Virginia Baptist servant leaders to combining their combined wisdom with our assignment

to making our report widely available to the break-out sessions we plan to hold at the 2013 BGAV

Annual Meeting, we have tried to conduct our work in a way that shows we are completely open andconsider our assignment to have been a sacred trust. We have absolutely no political agenda and

desire only the best outcome for the Virginia Baptist family we so cherish.

As a committee we stand as one, united in our belief that we are offering a biblically groundedgovernance process and leadership structure that is consistent with our Virginia Baptist roots and

history. We believe the proposed bodies will help the BGAV tap the rich diversity and great gifts God

has poured into the Virginia Baptist family. We further believe that the two bodies suggested in thisreport will help us strengthen our strategic connections, find new strategic leaders, and transform our

governing process into one that shows better stewardship of mission resources for us and those who

will follow us. We could not say that if we did not also believe that the two bodies we propose in this

report would broaden our representation of those who generously and sacrificially support ourcooperative missions efforts.

Our MotionEvery member of the BGAV Governance Study Committee accepted the invitation to serve on

the committee as a call to sacred service for such a time as this. We thank President Carl Johnson

for his confidence in us. We thank Virginia Baptists for your faith in us. We thank every VirginiaBaptist with whom we consulted and who shared their questions, ideas, and comments with us. We

thank God for the guidance we have received and the spiritual bond that has united us to do what you

charged us to do while remaining true to our shared values.

You asked us to study how the BGAV oversees the mission resources God has entrusted to usthrough its governance structures. We have steadfastly limited the scope of our consideration and

recommendations to this one issue. With this report, we say to Virginia Baptists that we have, to the

best of our knowledge and ability, offered the best possible solution we could find. We believe God

has provided an answer to your question, Can we, as the BGAV, manage the resources entrusted to usby Godtime, talents, assets, and mission opportunitiesmore strategically? As a special committee

created to advise the VBMB and the larger BGAV, we have no governing authority whatever, so wehumbly offer our best wisdom to the Virginia Baptist family we love and serve. We leave it to the

messengers of the General Association to discern whether we have served them well in recommending

a governance structure well suited to Advancing the Redeemers Kingdom in the 21stCentury.

Therefore, with the endorsements of the Virginia Baptist Mission Board and its ExecutiveCommittee, of the BGAV Past Presidents, and of many others who have graciously affirmed us and

our work, the BGAV Governance Study Committee moves that the Baptist General Association of


9/10

-9-

Virginia adopt the concept outlined in this report and authorize the Virginia Baptist Mission Board to

take the necessary steps to facilitate implementation of the changes specified in the report. Should theBGAV choose to adopt this governance blueprint at its 2013 Annual Meeting, then we propose that

those Constitution and Bylaw changes deemed necessary by the Mission Board for implementation of

this concept be adopted at the 2014 BGAV Annual Meeting, in which case the new governancestructure would be in place beginning in 2015.

Respectfully submitted,Jim Baucom, Chair

Don Davidson, Vice-Chair

Carl Johnson, Secretary (and serving BGAV President)

Steve AllsbrookDick Bidwell

Pat Bloxom

Ann BrownDan Carlton

Mark Croston (BGAV Past President)

Darrell FosterTommy McDearis (BGAV First Vice-President)

John Upton (BGAV Executive Director)

Eddie Stratton (BGAV Treasurer)Glenn Akins (VBMB Staff)


10/10

bgav governance study committee report

Documents