The Council of Elders met by teleconference today to continue the process of choosing a president, and to discuss recommendations for the Ambassador Bible Center program as brought forward by the Education Committee of the Council. Mario Seiglie was absent, being in transit to his new home in Los Angeles.

The procedure for selecting a president is moving along as planned. The Council announced in its November 1 letter the names of nine nominees put forward by members of the General Conference of Elders. The Council has now pared that list to five – Roy Holladay, Clyde Kilough, Dennis Luker, Les McCullough and Richard Pinelli.

Part of the process involves soliciting the input of the home office staff – those who work most directly with the president. Chairman Roy Holladay asked the Council how this could best be accomplished. Should there be a questionnaire for anonymous written responses or should the staff be interviewed? If they are to be interviewed, who should do the interviewing – Council members, other home office staffers, or a third party?

While some spoke of the advantages of a live interview, in the end the Council unanimously opted for a written questionnaire because of the advantage of anonymity.

Mr. Holladay asked Gary Antion, as chairman of the Ethical Review/Roles and Process Committee, to put the committee to work drawing up the questionnaire. Time is of the essence, since the Council would like to have the form ready to put into the hands of the home office staff before the end of the month (the Council meetings in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area begin December 5).

Next step – who will contact the references given by each nominee on his résumé? How will that information be distributed to the Council members? Initial discussion moved toward having each Council member directly contact as many of the individuals as he wished. In the end, Council decided to submit a standardized written request to each of the persons listed as a reference for any of the five final nominees. If any Council member desires further information he will be free to personally contact the references. Mr. Holladay and Secretary Gerald Seelig will work to craft a letter, and return it to the whole Council for its consideration.

Finally, the Council turned its attention to refining the questions to ask of each nominee at the interviews to take place at the next face-to-face meetings in Florida. Mr. Holladay asked Clyde Kilough to note the changes made by the Council members today and submit the revised document to the Ethical Review/Roles and Process Committee. The committee will finalize the list before the Tampa/St. Petersburg meetings. One potential difficulty was resolved when Mr. Antion suggested taping the interviews with the three nominees who are Council members, so that these men will not hear any of the responses from the other nominees until after their own interviews have taken place.

Dr. Ralph Levy recently submitted to the president a report assessing the first two years of the Ambassador Bible Center program, including several suggestions for modifications. As the Council committee with oversight, the Education Committee (Don Ward, chairman) has reviewed the suggestions, and agrees with most of them.

The question arose as to the need for the entire Council to approve the proposed changes. Dr. Ward wanted to be sure the process as stipulated by the governing documents of the Church was being followed, and asked to bring this material to the Council as a whole. Changes suggested include modifying the schedule, expanding the Major Prophets class to two semesters from one, and changing the class on Daniel and Revelation to a module class instead of a full semester presentation.

Leon Walker stated his belief that for the Council to be this involved with ABC matters came uncomfortably close to "micromanaging" in areas properly left to the Administration. Dr. Ward responded by quoting the job description of the Education Committee; as he said, he simply wanted to insure that the committee was fulfilling its role. Mr. Holladay asked Mr. McCullough what he wished the Council to consider in submitting the matter to its attention (through the Education Committee). His response: to show the Administration’s thinking on the matter, and simply inform the Council, to give it opportunity for input if desired.

John Jewell suggested simply returning the material to the Education Committee with the notation that the whole Council had been informed, agreed with the Administration’s view, and saw no need for further action or decision on its part. This met with general approval, and the day’s session came to a close.

Ó 2001 United Church of God, an International Association