We have been asked why we, as members of the EC Foundation, took the action that resulted in memorials to Second Presbytery. The following is a brief explanation.

The EC Foundation was formed in the spring of 2010 by a group of Erskine alumni who were concerned over the actions of Synod in the called meeting of March 2010. These alumni thought that Synod’s actions were contrary to the traditional election of trustees to Erskine’s board as agreed to by a reconciliation meeting that took place at the Due West ARP Church around 1980.

 The EC Foundation solicited funds to support Erskine College and its duly elected Board of Trustees that Synod voted to remove. The Foundation used funds to support plaintiff’s costs and for costs incurred by Erskine College, including payment to an attorney who represented the college per the request of Erskine College Presidents Randy Ruble and David Norman. After the decision of South Carolina’s Eighth Circuit Court the EC Foundation continued to solicit funds. These funds were not used in a manner contrary to that court’s order prohibiting either side in the litigation from carrying out retribution on the other side. These funds were used to assist plaintiffs in paying the indebtedness incurred from litigation. After those obligations were paid, the EC Foundation ceased soliciting funds.

 It is true that the EC Foundation continues to receive donations from individuals, but these are voluntarily contributed, and not solicited. Funds have been given with non-binding suggestions for their use, such as a gift of $11,000 for Erskine. Such gifts continue to enrich college programs. At no time did the Foundation or its board members discourage anyone from donating to Erskine College.  The four elders who have been named in memorials have worked and will continue to work to carry out the mission of the EC Foundation that is available for perusal on the Foundation’s website. We do not believe that we have broken any vows. As Christians we believe in good faith that it is proper to oppose an ecclesiastical court’s action that breaks a negotiated covenant.  We also believe that when the two sides in the issue litigated in 2010 negotiated and agreed that neither side should resort to future retribution, that agreement should be treated as a covenant.

Bill Lesesne, Foundation Chairman

John Hunt, Foundation Secretary

Lee Logan, Foundation Treasurer

Jim Gettys, Foundation Director