LAKE CHARLES – It’s a cliffhanger moment for those interested in the January 2005 election of Joe Aguillard Ed.D. as president of Louisiana College.
By Karen L. Willoughby
Managing editor
LAKE CHARLES – It’s a cliffhanger moment for those
interested in the January 2005 election of Joe Aguillard Ed.D. as
president of Louisiana College.
A panel of three judges March 8 heard 20-minute
appellate arguments related to the issue, and at the end, the outcome
was uncertain. One judge indicated she clearly understood the
plaintiff’s position; one indicated he clearly understood the
defendant’s position. The third was carefully neutral.
“It’s an interesting case,” said Justice Ulysses
Gene Thibodeaux in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals after James A.
“Jay” Bolen spoke opposing the election process, and Bradley L. Drell
spoke favoring the process. Both attorneys are from Alexandria.
“We’re going to roll up our sleeves and discuss it,”
the judge said, including fellow justices Sylvia R. Cooks and James T.
Genovese in his statement.
For Baptist Message readers who may not be familiar
with the case, Louisiana College’s seventh president, Rory Lee,
resigned in March 2004, and as per college bylaws, a nine-member
presidential search committee was formed. It included, as per the
instructions of the bylaws, the three officers of the college’s board
of trustees, and four trustee subcommittee members, plus a
representative from the faculty and another from the student body.
By late September 2004, the presidential search
committee had winnowed a list of 30 candidates to five semi-finalists,
three finalists, and their top two choices. Joe Aguillard was on the
original list but didn’t make the initial cut, said Bolen, hired by a
group of Louisiana College alumni, faculty members and “friends of the
college.”
Malcolm Yarnell, Ph.D., of Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary was named the new president and was presented to
messengers at the 2004 annual meeting of the Louisiana Baptist
Convention. But Yarnell backed out before the end of the year, and the
search for a president was on again.
Was the work of the presidential search committee
completed? Or because no contract had been signed, was the work of the
search committee still in process?
Ultimately a ‘blended’ search committee was formed,
and trustees instructed that committee to consider Aguillard first,
court documents say.
Aguillard was elected Jan. 18, 2005, by a trustee
vote of 17 to 13. A lawsuit was filed by Bolen’s clients that alleged
the election was fraudulent because the bylaws were not followed. Judge
Dexter Ryland ruled on the case heard March 17, 2005, that although the
bylaws were not followed, a nomination from the floor had to be allowed.
Arguments made at that hearing were re-heard at the
March 8, 2006 appellate hearing, with Bolen saying the court transcript
showed there was no nomination from the floor, so the Judge’s ruling
merited another examination by the appellate court.
“Let’s cut to the chase,” Genovese said shortly
after Drell began his statement. “The trustees can hire whomever they
want, right? Isn’t that what you’re saying?”
“That’s exactly what I’m saying,” Drell said.
According to Article 3, Section 5 of the college’s
bylaws, a vacancy can be filled at any meeting of the board of
trustees, Drell explained. Electing a college president is not the same
as electing the president of a club, Bolen countered. The bylaws were
set in place to assure the best possible candidate would be nominated
after careful review of qualifications and background.
The Louisiana College presidential search is similar
to the U.S. President’s recent search for a Supreme Court Justice,
Bolen said.
“I get what you’re saying,” Justice Cooks said. In
the same way that the Senate couldn’t choose their candidate for a new
justice, but had to wait for the president to bring forth a second
nominee after the Senate rejected the first, the trustees should have
waited for the presidential search committee to revisit its candidate
list, the judge said, restating Bolen’s position.
Judge Thibodeaux suggested early on in the
proceedings that because the case concerned a private institution, that
court should bow out of interference on First Amendment grounds.
“It would be easier to cop out,” Bolen said, using
the justice’s words. “But I hope the Court will address these very
serious issues.”