In December 2003, I asked Skip how I should plan to transition the Board of Directors to members of my choice. Skip requested that he would like to stay on for a year to help smooth transition…

…but that I should immediately appoint the rest of the Board with whomever I wished

On March 17, 2004, I sent a letter to the Board asking it to approve 3 new additional Board members of my choice in accordance with the church’s Director appointment powers vested in the Senior Pastor.

Skip refused this transition. Skip’s stated reasoning was that it had always been his intention that the current Board membership would remain intact without adding any new Board members for a period of at least one year and that he would then evaluate the need for change.

Skip…recently held a Board meeting with non-local Board members only and that they had voted affirmatively in support of his new viewpoint regarding the Board’s composition.

In addition, during the official March 25, 2004 Board meeting, Skip proposed to transfer CA’s radio station assets to a new company that he controlled. All non-Albuquerque directors voted in favor of the proposal.

I, along with another Albuquerque Board member, voted against this proposal. We were both well aware that the radio stations were very valuable CA assets. Further, it was my understanding that these radio station assets serve as collateral under a bond indenture of CA and could not be transferred to Skip’s company or another entity without breaching the CA covenants under the debt documents.

In a phone call the next day, Skip announced to me that I had “failed the test” by my negative vote on this matter and was now “on probation” in my role as Senior Pastor of the church. I was also told that I had been removed from the Board of Directors of the church for the same reason.

The long established By-Laws of the Church specify that the Senior Pastor cannot be removed from the Board of Directors and that only the Senior Pastor may nominate or propose a new Board Director or request the removal of a Board Director.

At Skip’s request, in the latter part of 2004, a CA Board member and I participated in a meeting held in Southern California with Skip and Paul Saber (Skip and Paul are members of both the CA and the Ocean Hills Boards of Directors), along with a consultant chosen by Skip.

They proposed setting up a new national organization under Skip’s control with an Albuquerque campus and Southern California campus, which was described as a new church model. Under this proposal, CA would become the new organization’s Albuquerque campus.

On November 8, 2004, a local Board Director of CA sent a strong letter of objection articulating his concerns over the proposed actions. This resulted in Skip’s request for this Board Director’s immediate resignation.

On November 10, 2004, Skip flew to Albuquerque unannounced to discuss the Albuquerque director’s letter.

Skip indicated to me that if I did not approve that he remain President of the CA Corporation, he would either have to find someone else to fill the Senior Pastor role or return to Albuquerque himself to take over as Senior Pastor.

At the November 29, 2004 Board meeting, Directors agreed to develop and put into place an intermediate plan to get the Board back to the original and long established governance model for CA. This plan included: 1) resignations from the Board by Franklin Graham and Greg Laurie…

to make three (including the Albuquerque Board member asked to resign) Board positions available for me to appoint members of my choosing,

2) the provision that Skip would serve as Board Chair until 2008 and then retire,

The Minutes of this Board meeting clearly reflect it was the clear intent of the two non-local resigning Directors that, as Board Chair, Skip’s authority was to be limited to reviewing and approving my recommendations for new Board members and reviewing my proposed Board meeting agendas. It was specified that I would have complete authority over the operations and ministry activities of CA, including all operational and staffing decisions.

Prior to the December 12, 2005 Board meeting, Skip contacted an Albuquerque Board member and requested him to submit his resignation.

I was not allowed to nominate the two new local Board Directors of my choice (out of three previously approved by Skip) until after the Board meeting.

At our official December 12, 2005 Board meeting, Skip repositioned himself to remain Board Chair for an indefinite period of time to facilitate restructuring of CA’s governance. As Board Chair, he indicated that he intended to run CA while serving as Senior Pastor at Ocean Hills, in California.

In that Board meeting, Skip chose and approved a new Board member of his choice without my consent….

…which was in clear violation of the agreement reached in the November 29, 2004 Board meeting.

Skip proposed his perpetual Chairmanship of the CA Board. Skip also reasserted his plans to govern and control CA.

Subsequent to the Board meeting, Skip, as Chairman, sent a letter to all new Board members that is, those just chosen by Pete…

…stating that they would not be qualified to serve as Board members if they did not support his governance vision.

While I was away on vacation with my family the week between Christmas and New Years, Skip called a Board meeting (which was at that time a Board made up of myself, Skip, and one non-local Board Director…

…and before my local nominees would officially become Directors on January 1)…

…despite my clear communication through my assistant, that I would not be able to attend.

In this Board meeting, Skip and the one non-local Board member, by means of a 2 Director quorum, voted to establish Skip’s Chairmanship indefinitely. [Obviously, Skip’s intent for the meeting could not be attained if Pete’s board members were present to vote against it after January 1, thus the refusal to wait for Pete’s return. Obviously, the refusal to phone in also could have been a ploy by Pete to try to hold off this change. And I can’t blame him for it.]

They these non-local Board members also voted to amend the CA By-Laws to provide legal authority for this change.

On January 18, 2006, Angie and I met with Skip and Lenya in Southern California to communicate our concerns as well as express our belief that the role of the Senior Pastor at CA is being undermined by these actions.

Angie also expressed the present reality of Skip’s actions as clear change in the original agreement when first presented with the opportunity in 2003. Skip agreed and cited my vote in the March 25, 2004 Board meeting as the beginning reason for this change.

On January 24, 2006, I discovered that Chip Lusko announced to his department that he would not be around much this year due to the increasing demands with Skip’s ministry needs. This announcement was made with the expectation that CA will continue to pay Chip’s full salary.