# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S48 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 48 TASK FORCE E. Investments Considerable interest in investments has been shown throughout the Synod in the past years. Frequent questions include: Are there adequate checks and balances covering the Treasurer? Are pension funds properly invested for maximum return? Are the funds left in trust in the Foundation secure? The Task Force considered these and other questions. As in other areas, it found duplication of functions which it proposes to eliminate. It also found that much more coordination is desirable. The Task Force concludes that there are four types of investments that must be recognized in the synodical structure: (1) cash flow investments, (2) trust investments, (3) pension and survivor plan investments, and (4) Church Extension investments. Since major changes were approved in Church Extension at the last convention, the Task Force proposes no further changes in those Bylaws. Changes are desirable, however, in the other areas. The Task Force proposes that the Treasurer, as the Trust Officer of the Synod, should be the prime liaison person between all financial-type boards. However, to preserve proper checks and balances the Task Force has proposed Bylaw changes which would make the Treasurer accountable to each board which he serves in a trust capacity as well as to the Board of Directors. The Treasurer would be appointed by the Board of Directors to ensure continuing accountability between conventions. The Task Force is also providing for an audit committee of the Board of Directors, consisting of outside directors, to review the activities of the Treasurer as well as other boards. The Treasurer will be primarily responsible for cash flow management. The Task Force recommends: 1. That the Treasurer of the Synod, as the Trust Officer of the Synod, be the prime liaison person between all financial boads, functioning under their respective policies and accountable to each such board in that capacity; 2. That the Board of Trustees for Trust Funds be combined with the Board of Trustees of the LCMS Foundation so that the Foundation becomes the Trust Department of the Synod, thus eliminating duplication between the Foundation and the Board of Trustees of the Synod. (The desirability of this action is already evi- denced by the fact that the Board of Directors has recently appointed the same people to both boards); 3. That changes be introduced in the structure and function of the Board of Managers—Worker Benefit Plans and that the responsibilities for the Pension Plan for Pastors and Teachers be transferred from the Board of Trustees for Trust Funds to the Board of Managers; 4. That the Board of Managers be expanded to include at least five laypersons with investment exper- tise and at least three persons with expertise in the design of benefit plans. F. Staff Supervision The Task Force believes that boards should be permitted, within certain restrictions, to choose the individuals who are to render staffservices to that board. However, itis also important that these individuals be compatible with the rest of the headquarters staff. Since the Synodical Service Commission is now being used only in very rare instances, namely, only in the selection of the chief staff officer of a board, Task Force II has come to the conclusion that it has outlived its usefulness. It would seem that each board should be free to choose its staff persons, with the help of the Personnel Department, with the approval, however, of the President of the Synod, who must also approve any extension or termination of services. Since many of the executive staff persons now are not pastors or teachers but laypeople, the Task Force is recom- mending that the same conditions of employment should prevail as are generally operative for the typical member of our congregations; namely, that individuals are no longer to be engaged on a four-year contract basis (most of the existing executive personnel are no longer engaged in that way), but that all such personnel will serve at the pleasure of their board. With federal and state regulations and other factors involved, it may not be as simple as some people imagine to terminate the employment of some who are found to be unsuited for their tasks. But it does seem that all executive employees should at least be treated equally. Furthermore, it should be noted that under the four-year contract arrangement the employee often seems free to accept appointment to another position without recompensing the Synod for terminating the contract before its expiration date. On the other hand, in a few instances when employees were terminated, they insisted that the provisions of the contract for the remainder of the term be fulfilled. This situation does not seem to be equitable. It is assumed that the staff person’s first reponsibility is to his own board. However, since the need for coordination from day to day is extremely important, such coordination should be effected through the office of the President, who is the chief executive officer of the Synod by Bylaw definition. Task Force II recommends: 1. That the Board of Directors have the responsibility to approve all positions and position descriptions and to give approval to fill a certain position at any given time; 2. That each board be permitted, in consultation with the Personnel Director, to fill staff positions with the provision, however, that the individual to be named receive prior approval of the President, whose approval shall also be secured before termination; 3. That the headquarters staff be responsible primar- ily to the respective boards and commissions which they serve in the implementation of programs; 4. That, however, the President of the Synod be responsible for the daily supervision and coordination of staff. Such supervision by the President shall be in accordance with the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolu- tions of the Synod and also in accordance with the decisions of said boards and commissions and, as applicable, of the Board of Directors. Actions of the President regarding any conflict with decisions of boards and commissions shall be subject to appeal. | G. District Representation in the Nominating Process . The charge given Task Force II included the mandate to decentralize wherever possible and to encourage grassroots involvement. District representation in the nominating process clearly supports this principle and aids in the process of finding the best available individuals from all parts of the Synod to stand for election to these important positions. Task Force II recommends: 1. That each District elect, through its regular elec- tion procedures at the District convention, one member of the Committee for Convention Nominations, plus an alternate; 2. That one-half of the Districts (in alphabetical order) elect a professional church worker and one-half elect a layman, with the roles reversed every three years; 3. That although subcommittee structures would be employed as in the past, the entire committee must determine each slate; 4. That nominations from the floor will still be received; 5. That the Secretary of the Synod handle the prelim- inary work of listing the positions to be filled and requirements for the same and issue the first call for nominations. H. Circuit Involvement Previous conventions have encouraged greater involvement of the Circuits in the life of the Synod. The Task Force agrees fully in the interest of broadening the base of involvement of the membership. One of the primary ways to express our congregational polity is to have congregations celebrate the life and mission of one another, support one another by developing common programs for the training of lay leaders, and where appropriate, consider and propose plans for future mission outreach in the Circuit area in line with District policies.