# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S204 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 204 SYNODICAL ADMINISTRATION costs at Bethesda, Good Shepherd Home. and Mill Neck M-nor (His Too): engaged a second CPA firm to make a professional investigation of certain repeated charges disseminated in the Synod; and authorized the obser- vance of the 75th anniversary of work among the deaf. IV. Recommendations A. Formation and Realignment of Districts (New York Resolution 4-30). Increasingly there seems to be a need for the Synod to supply criteria of procedure and viability to serve as guidelines for the formation of new Districts or for the realignment of existing Districts. The Board of Directors, acting upon instruction of the New York convention, therefore recommends the fol- lowing additions to Section 3.03 of the Bylaws: 3.03 Formation of Districts a. The Synod decides when and whether a District shall be formed, divided, realigned, or merged with another or other Districts, or dissolved; determines the boundaries of a District; and approves the name of a District. (Present paragraph, with “realigned” inserted after “divided.”) b. A proposal calling for the formation. division, realign- ment. merger, or dissolution of a District or Districts may be initiated by a synodical convention or may be presented to a synocical convention by a District convention or the synodical Board of Directors. c. Such proposals shall — 1. be submitted to the President at least 6 months prior to a synodical convention; 2, be produced in consultation with the Department of Research and Statistics; 3. include a substantiated description of the nonviable aspects of the current District(s) on the basis of criteria of viability adopted from time to time by synodical conventions, and shall specify the problems or factors which make the adoption of the proposal advisable or necessary; 4. provide evidence that possible changes in the present structure or function of the District(s) in order to meet the problems have received thorough consideration and have been deemed less desirable than the proposal being offered; 5. provide a specific and realistic development plan for the proposed District(s), including detailed proposals for staff personnel and financial operations; 6. be the object of an evaluation prepared by the synodi- cal Board of Directors and submitted to the convention. We also recommend that the Synod adopt the follow- ing statements as criteria at the present time for judging the viability of a proposed new or realigned District, with the understanding that these criteria may be amended by conventions as future needs dictate: A viable District — 1. offers adequate parish services; 2. provides adequate mission development, guidance, and support; 3. is adaptable and flexible in meeting new and various needs for ministry; 4. has boundaries corresponding to the major com- munications spheres in a given area; 5. centers in a metropolitan area and has boundaries and internal structures adapted to the metropol- itan areas within its boundaries; 6. evidences balance rather than mere homogeneity; 7. is compact in terms of travel patterns and travel times; 8. has sufficient potential financial resources for its own programs and for the support of the synodical ministries; 9. is large enough to be effective and efficient. B. Council of Auziliaries. For necessary background we reprint Resolution 4-29 of the New York convention: Whereas, The report of the committee on auxiliaries calls the attention of the church to the need for coordina- tion of the efforts of the various agencies operating within the Districts and the Synod; and WuereaS, Time did not permit study of the report of the committee on auxiliaries by the various auxiliary agencies of the Synod; therefore be it Resolved, That the Synod thank the Board of Directors and its study committee on auxiliaries for their efforts; and be it further Resolved, That the Synod endorse the principle of co- operation and coordination between the Synod and its auxiliaries; and be it further Resolved, That the report of the committee on auxil- iaries be studied by those parties affected with the re- quest that they report to the Board of Directors the re- sults of such study; and be it further Resolved, That the question of the relationship be- tween the proposed Council of Auxiliaries and the Coun- cil of Lutheran Ministries be explored by the Board of Directors of the Synod; and ke it finally Resolved, That the results of these studies be commu- nicated with appropriate recommendations by the Board of Directors to the Synod in convention in 1969. After further study and discussion the board is now ready to make the following three recommendations: 1. To reaffirm the final words of the report of the special committee and of the Council of Administrators: “We believe that a Council of Auxiliaries, established and operated as recommended, with a full-time coor- dinator, will be of invaluable assistance to the auxilia- ries and the Synod — to the work of the church”; 2. To include the existing members of the Council of Lutheran Ministries as initial members of the Coun- cil of Auxiliaries together with the Lutheran Women’s Missionary League, the Lutheran Laymen’s League, the Lutheran Education Association, the National Lutheran Parent-Teacher League, and the Lutheran Medical Mis- sion Association; and 3. To have the coordinator appointed by the Board of Directors of the Synod, responsible to the Board of Directors through the office of the Executive Director, and salaried by the Synod. C. Synodical Headquarters. In carrying out New York Resolution 4-31 the Board of Directors appointed a committee to study further the possible relocation of synodical headquarters. On recommendation of this committee the Board of Directors has decided that the choice of new synodical headquarters should be limited to three specific locations in the St. Louis area. Another committee of local experts has been appointed to weigh these three options and to make recommendations to the Board of Directors. It is hoped that the board will then be in a position to make its final recommendation to the Synod when the convention meets in Denver. BoarpD OF DIRECTORS HERBERT MUELLER, Secretary