nvca board of directors
Rev. Dr. Scott Seidler, M.B.A., D.Min. (Chair)
Craig Anderson (Vice-Chair)
Brent D. Garrison, Ph.D.
Jay Jasper
Lynette Kontkanen
Rev. Dr. Mark McCrory
Chris Schoenleb (Ex officio)
Andrea Searle, B.S., PharmD
Tom Shaeffer
Evelyn Vasileiadis
This page documents concerns regarding the actions, stated positions, and omissions of the Board of Directors as they related to our daughter’s mid-year removal from NVCA. The purpose is not to allege wrongdoing or question individual motives, but to examine observable governance decisions and non-decisions in light of fiduciary duty, safeguarding responsibility, and Christian educational governance.
Scope of Review
This review is based on:
- Written responses from Board leadership
- The Board’s stated refusal to review the matter
- Reliance on administrative delegation
- The absence of Board-level inquiry despite safeguarding concerns
- The irreversible impact on a minor student who was not accused of misconduct
Summary of Key Concerns
- Complete refusal to review a matter involving a minor
- Reliance on delegation without independent oversight
- Absence of Board-level safeguarding inquiry
- Framing a single student as impractical to review
- Silence that functioned as endorsement of administrative action
1. Role and Authority
The Board of Directors holds ultimate fiduciary responsibility for governance, safeguarding, and institutional accountability. While boards appropriately delegate day-to-day operations, fiduciary duty itself is not delegable.
When concerns involve student welfare, proportionality, and process — particularly where outcomes are irreversible — the Board functions as the final layer of oversight.
2. Observable Conduct
In response to requests for Board review, we were informed that the Board does not involve itself in individual student matters and that, given the size of the school, such involvement would be impractical.
Board leadership emphasized that matters of admission, retention, and discipline are delegated to administration and declined to review or discuss the circumstances of our daughter’s removal.
No indication was provided that the Board:
- Reviewed primary documentation
- Examined safeguarding concerns
- Assessed proportionality
- Considered whether delegation had been appropriately exercised
3. Fiduciary Duty and Delegation
While delegation is a standard governance practice, it does not relieve the Board of its duties of care, loyalty, and obedience to mission.
The refusal to review a case involving:
- A minor student
- No allegation of misconduct
- Raised safeguarding concerns
- Immediate and irreversible consequences
raises questions about whether fiduciary oversight was exercised with appropriate care.
Delegation is a governance tool; abdication is a governance failure.
4. Treatment of “One Student”
In a response 20 minutes after receiving a 4 page appeal leadership cited the scale of the school (approximately 800 students) as a reason review was impractical, framing the matter as involving only one student.
While governance efficiency is important, fiduciary responsibility does not diminish because a concern affects a single child. In both nonprofit governance and education, oversight responsibility is not scaled away when a child is vulnerable, especially at a school.
Notably, pastors serve on NVCA’s Board of Directors, including the Board Chair, Rev. Dr. Scott K. Seidler. While governance and pastoral roles are distinct, the presence of clergy reasonably creates an expectation that principles of care, accountability, and protection of the vulnerable inform governance decisions.
5. Absence of Safeguarding Review
The Board was informed of concerns involving:
- Isolation of a minor
- Refusal to allow parental presence
- Emotional distress and medical impact
- Absence of student misconduct
Despite this, no Board-level safeguarding review occurred.
Boards are commonly the final safeguard when institutional systems fail. Declining to review safeguarding concerns — particularly where no misconduct is alleged — raises concerns about fulfillment of the duty of care owed to students entrusted to the institution.
6. Process Over Outcome
Board responses emphasized process (“we delegate,” “we avoid individual matters”) rather than outcomes or impact.
No communication reflected concern for:
- The student’s welfare
- Emotional harm
- Loss of educational continuity
- Reputational harm to a minor
Process exists to serve people — especially children — not to insulate decisions from scrutiny.
7. Alignment With Christian Governance Expectations
Boards governing Christian schools are often expected to embody:
- Moral courage
- Willingness to ask difficult questions
- Protection of the vulnerable
- Accountability when authority affects a child
- Alignment between stated faith and applied governance
Reflection Question:
Does declining to review a safeguarding concern involving a child — solely because it affects “one student” — reflect the fiduciary and moral leadership parents expect from a Christ-centered school board?
Conclusion
Based on observable responses and omissions, this assessment raises concerns regarding:
- Exercise of fiduciary duty
- Safeguarding oversight
- Moral accountability
- Alignment with Christian educational values
- Willingness to protect a vulnerable student
The Board’s refusal to engage had the practical effect of foreclosing any avenue of review or redress. Silence, in this context, functioned as endorsement.
While boards must balance delegation with efficiency, that balance must never come at the expense of a child’s welfare. In our experience, the Board’s decision not to review this matter represented a missed opportunity to ensure that the school’s actions reflected both sound governance and the values it publicly professes.
footer
This assessment reflects parental observations and opinions based on contemporaneous records and direct experience. It does not allege criminal conduct. We welcome correction of any material factual error.