# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S224
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

242 SEMINARIES AND COLLEGES

connected with the plant administration were handled in man
cases quite independently of the president. Communication,
from various synodical agencies and other sources relatin
important administrative problems sometimes went direct]
Board of Control members or committees and never crossed
the president’s desk.

“The examiner was confused by the synodical regulations
on this point. In the synodical Handbook (6.91) there 7
a statement about the authority and duties of the President
which appears to be fully in line with the best American
practice. This statement says clearly that he (the President)
‘shall be the executive officer of the Board of Control.’ It
says further that the ‘Synod, its Boards, and its members shall
first of all hold him responsible in all matters Pertaining to
the institution.’ ... From a study of the minutes of the Board
of Control it does not appear to the examiner that the prin.
ciples involved in Handbook Section 6.91 have yet been fully
embodied in the practice of .. .

“The confusion in the examiner's mind with respect to
what.the regulations of the Synod actually are 8rew out of
reading Sections 6.39 of the synodical Handbook along with the
statements quoted above. Paragraph b in particular of Sec.
tion 6.39 caused most of the confusion, but d, e, and f added
to it...

“... The institution was given the benefit of the doubt
caused by violations of unit control principles in the past on
the part of the Board of Control and the apparent contradiction
of regulations in the synodical Handbook. . . . If a score of
zero had been given on the subheading ‘Officers Responsible
to the Board,’ the institution would have scored so low on
general control that grave questions might have been raised as
to whether its general administrative setup justified accredita-

. tion. The major problem here appears to be one of clarifying

' the regulations in the Handbook and bringing the actions of
the local board into full accord with the principles of unit
control, which in at least one section of the Handbook are
clearly stated. Unless this matter is cleared up, an examiner
might consider himself justified in rating the college at the
3d percentile on general control instead of at the 20th as in
this report.” ‘

The above quotations are taken from an examination made by
a former high official of the North Central Association at the direc-
tion of the Board for Higher Education. In the official examination
at River Forest the new system of accounting and budgetary control
was highly praised and rated, but the “general control” (admin-
istrative relation to Synod) was rated at only the 38th percentile.
The essence of the problem is to make the necessary adjustments
in the Handbook so that the acceptance of ‘the following three
principles of sound educational administration and control will
be clearly reflected:

1, That the president will clearly be the only executive officer
(unit control) of the Board of Control and that no direct

SEMINARIES. AND. COLLEGES 243

management or executive operations are undertaken by
such Boards.

2. That the local Board of Control have: a single channel of

communication (unit control) also at the synodical level.
This would not obviate, by any means, the possibility of
reference by the Board for Higher Education to any other
Boards, units, or officers designated by Synod, but the éssen-
tial point is that all channels from the institution. to Synod
will lead directly through a ‘single responsible board: and
that all communications and administrative channels from
Synod to the institution will likewise lead through the same
single board to the executive officer of the college...

3. That the local Board of Control have discretionary and

‘administrative responsibility within the limits of the.budget
assigned to the institution. : — ,

Synod has already expressed its accord with these pririciples,
and the educational operations during the last triennium have, as
far as possible, been carried forward along these lines. The direc-
tives of the Handbook can be readily adjusted to clarify Synod’s
policy of unit control. Two types of adjustment are indicated:

1. The contradictory sections should be reconciled to each

other where possible. . et

2. A clear-cut unit relationship between the local administra-

tions and Synod should be established.

This will end confusion by requiring all matters which pertain
to Synod’s educational system’ to be handled through the, Board
for Higher Education, even though this Board may be required to -
refer items to other boards which have an assigned responsibility
in the matter involved. ms wo as

Shr

Handbook Sections 6.21 and 2.07 _ weg
Since it is quite apparent that it would not serve the: best
interests of our educational]. institutions if the: entire. Board. of
Control personnel were changed at: a. single. synodical convention,
and since this could occur under present constitutional.and Hand-
book Provisions, the Board for Higher Education recommends that
some overlapping of terms be introduced. Such action would re-
quire an adjustment of Synod’s constitution and of “Handbook
Section 6.21," * an a on. oo. ve ge os
The Board for Higher Education recommends therefore
That the word “triennially” in line 2 of Section 6.21 be
deleted. — aon ete
The Board recommends further a JO Faw Es
That the following two additional paragraphs be ‘added to
the revised Section 6.21: o ce Be
__ _ The chairman, who is-a member ex officio, is elected by
his District for a three-year term of office. All other members