From the linked article:
I was approached over four years ago with disturbing information that I did not seek out. Along with others who received this information, I directed it to the elders of Willow Creek. The process that followed was, in my view, poorly designed and likely to expose any woman who came forward to grave risks.
An independent investigation by an outside, trained expert should have been thoroughly carried out before the senior pastor was first approached. To my knowledge that did not happen. The firm chosen to investigate (more than a year after the first report) is one that, as stated on their website, “exclusively represents management.” Of course, both sides of an accusation deserve a hearing and fair representation, but a firm that is retained by one side, and whose principal work is to represent one side in such disputes, cannot be considered independent. (emphasis added)
I've been trying to learn more about the legal obligations of boards of trustees in general. (I'm also aware Google results aren't the final word on the subject, so I'm open to correction here if someone has better information.) As nearly as I can figure out from multiple sources, a board of trustees has a
legal obligation to represent the
interests of their organization ahead of any outside interests. If the lawyer reports directly to the Evergreen BOT, and the BOT has the duty to act in the best interests of Evergreen, then what conclusion should we draw about the BOT's ability to act fairly and impartially?
