# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S24
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

24

SYNOD REPORTS

structure lacks accountability and is expensive to fund. Legal compliance and business oversight are often difficult to manage under
the current structure.”
In order to enhance accomplishment of the mission of our Synod
and to do so in a way that realizes greater stewardship of the dollars
entrusted by the people of God, the task force recommends elimination of the seven program boards and two of the six commissions that
currently exist. I support this recommendation because I believe it is
necessary to achieve greater economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Here are a few realities:
1. Responding to a 40-year pattern of declining revenue
from congregations through districts to national Synod,
a number of boards have found it difficult to achieve a
balanced budget, in some cases relying heavily on large
bequests to fund regular programmatic expenses.
2. One program board has experienced expenditures greater
than revenue by amounts totaling millions of dollars over
the past several years alone.
3. Another board allowed and approved travel budgets for
one fiscal year of several hundred thousand dollars.
4. Yet another program board discovered a significant over
expenditure of its budget only after the departure of its
former executive director.
5. Budget management and revenue coordination are quite
complex with each program board and commission operating what essentially amount to separate operations.
6. Collaboration between and among boards is very difficult.
In fact, some members of some boards or commissions
do not even know that other boards and commissions exist.
7. Some program boards and commissions operate more efficiently than others. Yet executive directors spend significant time and other resources dealing with board or
commission matters rather than directly accomplishing
the work they are called to do.
These examples are cited with no intention of expressing disrespect or casting aspersions on board or staff members involved. The
reality is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for a board comprised of several individuals from across the nation who meet together
as a board four times each year for approximately two days to have a
clear and accurate picture of what really is happening in the ministry
for which the board is supposed to provide oversight and direction.
To complicate matters further, executive directors of the program
boards and commissions, while technically under the supervision of
the Synod President, are effectively and primarily accountable to
their respective program board or commission. This is understandable, since their program boards or commissions are responsible in
our current system for recommending compensation increases and
determining whether or not to renew the five year contractual relationship with their executive directors.
Supervision and accountability of employees of the Synod is very
difficult under these current circumstances. Not one of the 35 districts
of the Synod still operates under a system of structure and governance
like the one just described. The task force is recommending that the
Synod’s system of employee supervision and accountability catch up
with that of its districts. I concur.
Having said all that, I believe it is my duty to call attention to the
recommendation the task force has offered, namely, replacing the
seven program boards and two commissions with a Commission on
National Mission and a Commission on International Mission, both of
which would be advisory to the Synod President. Under this recommendation, the senior staff members in each of these two departments

or offices would be directly accountable to a Chief Mission Officer,
who would be accountable to the Synod President, who would appoint
such officer with concurrence of the Board of Directors.
At issue here is how to honor the duty and responsibility of the
office of the Synod President, who is charged with “the supervision
regarding the doctrine and the administration of … all such as are
employed by the Synod” (LCMS Constitution Art. XI B 1 b) while
also actually improving the President’s ability to provide meaningful
day-to-day supervision and coordination of Synod employees. This
is especially important regarding daily supervision of employees of
the Synod at the executive director or senior staff level.
Providing a remedy to the current problematic process would also
effectively relieve employees of the current tension of being somehow
or somewhat accountable to “two masters.” Under the current system,
Synod leaders are realistically accountable to their respective program
boards or commissions, as noted above. Essentially, there is a corresponding lack of actual accountability to any person at the LCMS
International Center. The result is that the President of the Synod is
given the responsibility for supervision and is ultimately responsible
for actions of Synod employees, but lacks any real or practical ability to provide the supervision commensurate with the responsibility.
One observation is that while the task force proposal would certainly solve the current problem of supervision and accountability, it
could be seen as concentration of excessive authority in the office of
the Synod President. That is neither the task force’s intention nor my
desire. My counsel to convention delegates, therefore, is to consider
carefully whether such real authority of supervision and/or perceived
centralization of power would be the result and if the latter, what alternative solution should be considered.
While personally and experientially convinced that the current
system is inefficient and even problematic, I also believe that consolidation of the program boards and commissions in question into
two boards (rather than two advisory commissions), namely, the
Board for National Mission and the Board for International Mission,
is worthy of consideration. In addition, assigning to the president the
direct or indirect responsibility to supervise the day-to-day work of
the employees of the Synod and allowing the president a method of
intervention should either board violate the Constitution, Bylaws, or
resolutions of the Synod, should be considered.
My primary concern in this matter is to improve the system that
currently exists while also ensuring that the task force recommendation would properly and adequately satisfy my request and the
Synod’s need for provision of appropriate checks and balances.
Group Three: National Issue Recommendations

This portion of the report includes recommendations regarding clarification of the Constitution over the Bylaws, consideration
of a process that could lead to the renaming of the Synod, and the
continued study of clergy certification. I agree with these recommendations, urging careful deliberation and emphasizing the importance
of developing consensus throughout the Synod regarding these very
significant matters.
Conclusion

It is my hope that this brief response to the task force report will
be helpful for the Synod’s careful consideration of the recommendations contained in the report. It is my prayer that the work of the task
force and the decisions ultimately made by the Synod in convention
will result in a system of structure and governance for our beloved
Synod that will result in greater efficiency and effectiveness in accomplishing the mission our Lord has given His Church.
Gerald B. Kieschnick, President
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 24

4/15/10 2:37 PM