BRH President Bill Stillerman has sent copies of the report to his board members and is declining to comment until they have had time to digest the report and respond to him.

Welch named the study committee to examine the historic relationship between the two entities and make recommendations stemming from issues related to 15 months of actions and reactions between BRH and BSCNC since BRH proposed a change in relationship in August 2005.

That change involved a BRH request to relinquish $950,000 in annual Cooperative Program funding in exchange for being able to elect its own trustees. While the BSCNC Executive Committee affirmed the proposal BSCNC attorney John Small soon thereafter was asked to review the proposal and he determined that the BRH action was significant enough to "sever" the relationship with BSCNC.

A process to sever an institutional relationship with the Convention is outlined in BSCNC bylaws. When BRH trustees were asked to rescind their action and start over, this time following the process outlined in the bylaws, they declined. Instead, they withdrew their proposal and in December 2005 they amended their governing documents to create a self-perpetuating board.

BSCNC and BRH leadership worked to resolve differences, but a stalemate ensued, which the study committee was called upon to overcome.

Ironically, the report points out, had BRH agreed to follow the process in 2005 it already would have accomplished its goal.

Report structure

The committee met in January, March, April, September and October. A subcommittee met separately to draft the report. During the summer, members conducted interviews with "key individuals related to the BRH."

Stillerman, who complained in August that BRH had not been sufficiently involved in the study process, met with the committee in March and October. The March meeting was brief after BRH leadership was "clear that they would not discuss the December 2005 changes to its governing documents, nor would they consider rescinding those changes," the report states.

The report admits committee members speculated among themselves on BRH motives for its actions, but members felt speculation had no place in their report.

"Since BRH refused to discuss past history with the committee the committee could not make a clear, full and balanced report on the fundamental matters that led to the disruption of the relationship between the BSCNC and BRH," the report said. "It was impossible for the Study Committee to move forward toward restoration when it was prohibited from examining the facts which first created the impasse."

Stillerman said at the time that BRH's primary interest was to talk about the future relationship, not to rehash the past.

Ultimately, the committee concluded the "prior relationship BSCNC enjoyed with BRH cannot be restored," which is why it urges BRH officially to sever the old relationship and seek a new one.

Some affirmations

The committee listed several affirmations from their study:

While the study committee cannot make policy, it also listed eight areas of concern, seven of which were pointed at BRH. Among the concerns is that BRH "violated its own governing documents in 1994" by not gaining prior approval from BSCNC when making changes to those documents and "refused the opportunity offered by BSCNC" for help in following the procedures required to alter the relationship.

The committee expressed "surprise" that BRH fundraising efforts during the past two years "implied that BRH ministries have suffered due to the BSCNC's decision to escrow Cooperative Program funds for 2007" at the same time BRH has said it will relinquish those same funds in exchange for electing its own board.

The committee expressed concern that BRH action in soliciting churches directly "carries with it the seeds for the destruction of the Cooperative Program." The report referred to separate letters from Luther Osment, BRH's assistant to the president, dated Dec. 1, 2006, and from Stillerman, dated Feb. 5, 2007.

Osment's letter was encouraging churches to support the BRH special offering and assured letter recipients that BRH "is in the process of taking very positive steps toward cultivating church giving and foundation giving so that soon it will be unnecessary for it to look to Convention Cooperative program funds to finance its benevolent care."

Stillerman's letter urged churches to "continue to make your monthly Cooperative Program payment" but to ask BSCNC not to escrow the percentage that would go to BRH. He also suggested churches could send directly to BRH the percentage of their CP gift that would go to BRH.