Rev. Dr. Scott K. Seidler - Chairman of the Board

This page documents concerns regarding governance consistency as it relates to the role of the Board Chair during the events leading to our daughter’s mid-year removal from NVCA. The purpose is not to question theology, personal faith, or intent, but to examine observable governance positions and responses in light of fiduciary responsibility, safeguarding obligations, and the expectations commonly associated with Christian leadership.

This review is based on:

• Written correspondence from the Board Chair
• His role as presiding officer of the Board of Directors
• The Board’s stated refusal to review the matter
• The rationale offered for non-involvement
• The absence of Board-level inquiry despite safeguarding concerns
• The irreversible impact on a minor not accused of misconduct

• Framing review of a single student as impractical due to scale
• Reliance on delegation without threshold governance review
• Absence of independent oversight in a safeguarding context
• Tension between professed Christian values and applied governance posture

As Chairman of the Board, Rev. Dr. Seidler holds a central leadership role in setting governance posture, tone, and boundaries for Board engagement. While day-to-day administration is appropriately delegated, the Board Chair plays a key role in determining when issues rise to the level of fiduciary or safeguarding concern requiring Board awareness or inquiry.

In correspondence responding to requests for Board review, Rev. Dr. Seidler explained that the Board avoids involvement in individual student matters, citing the size of the school and the impracticality of reviewing concerns involving one student among several hundred.

This position resulted in the Board declining to review or inquire into the circumstances of our daughter’s removal, despite the absence of alleged misconduct and the presence of safeguarding and proportionality concerns.

Delegation is a recognized and necessary governance practice. However, fiduciary responsibility does not diminish based on scale, nor is it eliminated because a concern involves a single student.

When a matter involves:

• A minor
• No allegation of misconduct
• Documented emotional distress
• Irreversible consequences

framing oversight as impractical due solely to institutional size raises questions about whether fiduciary duty was exercised with appropriate care.

Rev. Dr. Seidler also serves in a pastoral leadership role at Shepherd of the Desert Lutheran Church in Scottsdale, AZ.  Pastoral ministry is commonly associated with attentiveness to individual welfare, particularly where concerns involve minors, vulnerability, or potential injustice.

This observation is not a commentary on personal faith or pastoral conduct. Rather, it raises a governance-based question of consistency when a faith-based institution identifies itself as Christ-centered and pastors serve in senior governance roles.

Families may reasonably ask whether governance decisions — especially those permanently affecting a child — are informed by the same principles of care, accountability, and protection of the vulnerable that are publicly affirmed in Christian teaching and institutional faith statements.

Despite being informed of concerns involving:

• Isolation of a minor
• Denial of parental presence
• Emotional and medical impact
• Lack of student misconduct

No threshold Board-level or chair-initiated review occurred and Rev. Dr. Seidler replied within 20 minutes of the board being sent the request (see below).

Boards are often the final safeguard when institutional systems fail. Declining to engage at any review level effectively foreclosed independent oversight.

Christian leadership often emphasizes the value of the individual, particularly the vulnerable. Scripture reflects this principle in teachings such as:

“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine and go after the one that is lost?”
— Luke 15:4

This reference is offered not as accusation, but as reflection. When a Christian institution declines to review a safeguarding concern because it affects “one student,” families may reasonably wrestle with whether that posture aligns with the values the institution professes, would he apply the same to his church?

Based on observable governance responses and stated positions, this assessment raises concerns regarding:

• Exercise of fiduciary responsibility
• Use of scale as a justification for non-review
• Absence of safeguarding oversight
• Consistency between professed Christian values and applied governance
• 
  

The Board Chair’s position had the practical effect of leaving a minor without any avenue for independent review or advocacy. In our experience, this created a disconnect between stated commitments to care and the governance response applied when a child was most vulnerable.

We share these concerns not to challenge doctrine or personal faith, but to invite thoughtful reflection on how Christian values are applied in governance decisions — particularly when the outcome permanently affects a child who has not been accused of wrongdoing.