Independent Baptist Colleges

COD, Glen Ellyn may try to resolve differences

Just when it appeared all was lost, Glen Ellyn and the College of DuPage may resolve their differences after all.

A battle that began last year over code requirements for campus signs started the latest controversy between the parties, but the heart of the issue is whether the college is legally obligated to comply with village construction codes.

COD Board President Dave Carlin said before Thursday’s board meeting that the college had contacted the DuPage State’s Attorney’s office and told them they were letting the Glen Ellyn issue “quiet down” for a period while the two parties explored a resolution.

State’s Attorney Robert Berlin’s office became involved when the COD Board of Trustees voted unanimously May 23 to rescind an intergovernmental agreement with the village, effectively beginning the de-annexation proceedings from the village.

But Glen Ellyn resident Rinda Allison challenged the vote as a violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act because the reason for the vote wasn’t posted on the meeting agenda.

Berlin’s office communicated with Carlin by letter June 1 informing him that the vote “violates the spirit, if the not the intent of the Illinois Open Meetings Act” and that the state’s attorney’s office expected the matter to be rectified with a proper ratification.

In a June 13 meeting with the Sun editorial staff, COD President Robert Breuder indicated the college would resubmit the motion to comply with the statute.

But when the issue didn’t turn up on the June 23 agenda as expected, Carlin explained that the two parties were exploring a solution.

In that same June 13 meeting, Breuder said that the two parties had a contentious relationship for more than 20 years and that “divorce is the only viable alternative.”

The immediate issue involves current construction in COD’s campus renovation. The two parties have been at odds over whether the college has to comply with local building codes. The village’s position is that no independent inspections of the construction took place to satisfy village code.

The college has long maintained that they used a multi-stage peer review process that sometimes used the same inspectors the village employed.

Isaiah Sage: Independent Baptist Newspaper Reacts to ABC 20/20 Report

Independent Baptists are not perfect people, and our churches are not perfect churches; but when there is a cause for criticism, we would hope that, whatever the complaint, the critic would deal with it in a fair and honest way. It is especially important, when the media get involved, that the issues are dealt with factually. When a newspaper or a television network reports a story in such a way that they become the story, then you know that something has gone wrong. 20/20 episode, those of the Hyles camp of fundamentalism were linked with those in the Bob Jones network. Yet, these two streams of independent Baptists would rarely endorse each other. Therefore, to imply, as ABC did, that all camps of independent Baptists are in cahoots with one another and networked into some type of cultic structure is simply not true. 2. To the degree that ABC was accurate in its reporting any cover-up of sexual misconduct by Baptist ministers and churches, it should be applauded. Those who are guilty of sexual misconduct and those who cover up such deviancy should be exposed, even if they are members of our movement - indeed, especially because they are members of our movement. We should not allow the deviants within our movement to define us. The must be exposed in order that the reputation of the movement may remain above reproach. 3. To the degree that ABC was inaccurate in its reporting and blindly accepted the word of disgruntled church members without investigating the veracity of the accusations, it should be condemned. Proper journalism demands hearing both sides of the matter before rushing to meet a broadcast deadline. If ABC improperly slandered any godly minister or ministry, it should be held accountable. One such rule is that "evidence should be presented as failry and completely as possible." The fallacy which breaks that rule is called "special pleading," which is intentionally presenting favorable evidence to one's case, while at the same time purposely omitting unfavorable evidence. It is commonly practiced in courtrooms, where attorneys for one side of the argument present only that evidence which is favorable and attempt to suppress evidence that is unfavorable. This is acceptable in the courtroom, because the whole truth should come out, if both sides do their jobs properly. However, when ABC's case was presented, it was totally one-sided, with a great deal of evidence that did not favor their argument being completely ignored.