# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S43
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

TASK FORCE 43

procedures of the Synod, but primarily in order to bring the
decision-making powers to the most immediate local level. In
this way the Task Force hopes to encourage congregations to
be more responsive to and responsible for cooperative work
within their own Circuits. This can be accomplished by means
of an active Circuit Forum and also by means of a triennial
Circuit gathering for inspirational and educational purposes.
It is hoped that the result will be a greater awareness of one
another and of the opportunities which the Lord places before
us right where we are.

Personnel selection is an important ingredient for success-
ful organization and implementation of synodical programs
and objectives. To this end Task Force II proposes that every
District be represented on an enlarged synodical Committee
for Convention Nominations. This should be viewed as a
further effort to bring the important search for talent to fill
positions in the Synod to the most immediate and manageable
level of participation and broaden the base for this important
procedure.

In these and other ways Task Force II has attempted to
preserve and enhance the basic involvement of the congrega-
tion in the life of the Synod.

B. Centralization Within the Synodical Structure

The Anaheim convention also gave the directive to ‘avoid
the centralization of power within the synodical structure.”
Even aside and apart from the relationship between the
congregation and the Synod, every effort should be made to
avoid centralization within the synodical structure.

This is a difficult assignment. There must be accountability
in any organization, and the lines of accountability must be
made even sharper as the organization becomes larger.

Task Force II sees that the major points at which unwanted
centralization may occur are (1) in the President’s office, (2) in
the Board of Directors, (3) in the operating boards, and (4) in
the professional staffs.

1. As far as the President’s office is concerned, the Consti-
tution reposes considerable responsibility in that office. It is
the conviction of Task Force IJ that this principle which has
served the Synod well from its very beginning should be
continued. There is one man up front whom the Synod holds
responsible through the elective process for the final super-
vision of everything done in the Synod. There is a value in
having such clarity in place of confusion. However, at the same
time it must be recognized that the Synod has developed checks
and balances through the years which may sometimes be
frustrating but which nevertheless prevent the presidency
from becoming an autocratic office. Whatever drawbacks may
be involved in such frustrations, there are benefits that should
not be given up without careful thought.

2. It is self-evident that a central board like the Board of
Directors is in danger of becoming the focus of undue centrali-
zation. When too much authority resides in one board, other
boards may well conclude that they are spinning their wheels
and wasting their time. The integrity and the essential
responsibilities of individual boards need to be retained. At the
same time there must be provision for proper accountability
and for coordinating the implementation and prioritization of
convention resolutions. The logical place for this seems to be
the Board of Directors. Since such a board in making its
decisions may not have the broad sweep of the entire work of
the Synod within its purview, and since the Task Force is
proposing an enlarged area of responsibility for the Board of
Directors, the Task Force is recommending the introduction of
a limited amount of participatory decision making. To achieve
this, it recommends having the chairmen of the program
boards sit as voting members of the Board of Directors and
having the members of the Council of Administrators avail-
able, except for executive sessions, in the meetings of the Board
of Directors for communication in both directions.

Furthermore, the Task Force is recommending that major
actions of the board be communicated quarterly in the
Lutheran Witness in addition to the current method of report-
ing through the Reporter. Greater specific accountability is
required of those who are granted necessary increased author-
ity and on whom increased responsibility devolves. To that end
the Task Force recommends that the verbatim minutes of the

Board of Directors, less executive sessions, be made available
to any member of the Synod, or individual member of its
congregations, upon written request therefor at a reasonable
price. In this manner every interested person may timely know
what the Board is doing and why. The Board is then truly
reporting to those whom it serves.

3. Individual operating boards may bein danger of central-
ization of power. If they perceive themselves to be responsible
only to the synodical convention and fail to coordinate their
planning and activities with other units of the Synod, this can
produce a negative chain reaction among the other operating
and service boards of the Synod. It is obvious that there must
be a sense of partnership and cooperation among the various
boards.

4. Perhaps the most subtle form of centralization could be
the centralization of power within the synodical staff. When
boards meet infrequently, or when they are derelict in their
supervisory and policy-making responsibility, the vacuum is
invariably filled by the staff. The result is a feeling of dissatis-
faction on the part of the electorate in that the Synod seems to
be run by persons whom the Synod has not elected but rather
by persons who have been employed to perform certain func-
tions for the Synod and its various boards and commissions. In
the process of avoiding this, great care must also be exercised
that the operating boards do not take over the functions of staff
persons. Furthermore, policies regarding employment and
termination of staff are vital in avoiding undue centralization
of authority in staff.

From the foregoing it can be seen that it is not at all easy to
“avoid the centralization of power within the synodical
structure.” Task Force II has given much attention to this
assignment and is confident that in its recommendations it 1s
moving the Synod toward a more equitable solution of the
problems involved in centralization.

Above all we must remember that we are a church body,
bound together by our common faith in Jesus Christ as our
Savior and our common love for Him. And so while manage-
ment principles are important, there are other and larger
considerations that must also guide those who are charged
with working together for the sake of Christ and His great
work. These principles are firmly embedded in the Word of our
God and need to be preeminent in our work together.

IV. Recommendations
As a result of its intensive work, Task Force II now offers
the following recommendations under various headings.

A. Conventions and Terms of Office

Task Force II early in its deliberations resolved that the
basic functions of general and District conventions should
remain the same. Therefore no changes are being proposed in
the basic functions of conventions.

There have been repeated suggestions that the two-year
convention cycle is much too short and that the Synod should
perhaps return to its former triennial cycle of conventions or
even introduce a four-year span. The argument has been
advanced by some that biennial conventions are too expensive.
Studies by the Synod’s convention manager show that the
costs of the District conventions every biennium approximate
those of the synodical conventions. However, there is a more
basic concern that, with a two-year cycle, officers, boards, and
staffs are in a continual process of preparing for conventions,
leaving little time for implementation of convention resolu-
tions and for innovative planning. On the other hand, it is felt
that a four-year span between conventions is too long, that this
would not permit the membership of the Synod to give adequate
expression to its desires and timely evaluation of synodical
activity. Other proposals called for an alternating cycle of
mini- and maxiconventions, annual conventions, 5-year inter-
val conventions, and even 10-year interval conventions.

The best option in the opinion of Task Force II is a three-
year convention cycle, although such a proposal does require
alteration with respect to length of terms and limitation of
tenure. The three-year cycle would also permit the introduction
of one year for focusing on Circuit activities or other more
general activities of an inspirational or educational nature,
such as the Great Commission Convocation of 1980.