Method for Dismissing the University President

In November, 2013, the Bob Jones University Board of Trustees amended the charter to include the following method for dismissing the University President. Notice point two:

Method for Dismissing the University President

1. The President can be dismissed for reasons of inadequate/ineffective leadership or a chargeable offense.
2. If the reason is a chargeable offense, the reason for the charge shall be submitted in writing to the chair of the Board who shall convene the Executive Committee and apprise them of the charges [italics added].
3. The President will be placed on administrative leave, with pay, if the Executive Committee believes the charges may warrant dismissal, from the time the Executive Committee is convened to consider the allegations until such time as the case is closed.
4. Upon a favorable vote by five of the seven Executive Committee members, the Board chair will bring the findings and suggested action to the Board of Trustees at the next regular meeting, or if need be, at a called meeting allowing no less than two (2) weeks for assembly.
5. If the president feels unjustly charged, he can make a written appeal to the chair of the Board who will convene the Executive Committee to discuss the charges. The decision will then come to the Board of Trustees, for which at least 20 members must be present. The Board of Trustees, by majority vote, is at liberty to request the president to be present.
6. Between the time that the charges are presented to the Executive Committee and the Board of Trustees is called together to hear the charges, the President is forbidden from making any contact with Board members, by any means, to lobby for his or her cause prior to the assembling of the Board. To do so will disqualify him or her from the Board review, thus closing the case without further appeal.
7. The President may be removed from office by a two-thirds majority of the Board of Trustees.

We alumni take very seriously Larry Jackson’s request that we participate in the process of selecting a new president. Understanding the reasons behind Stephen’s dismissal will shape our participation. This documented method reveals that the sole discretion for the “chargeable offense” brought against the President lies with the Chairman of the Board, Larry Jackson. If these rules are followed, we must assume that charges have been submitted in writing.

We alumni can and should write the Executive Committee asking for more transparency on Stephen Jones’ dismissal before its next scheduled meeting on Thursday, May 8.