# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S60
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

60

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
the dissemination of an official Synod annual
report (in addition to the annual “State of the
Synod” issue of The Lutheran Witness).

A number of issues presented challenges—and continue to
present challenges—to the full fulfillment of this expectation.
The meaning of certain words (clear, timely, and transparent) or
phrases (“special appeals”) is largely subjective. Without a definition, the meaning of certain words is observer-relative. Definitions of these terms in the resolution were absent, leaving the
interpretation of them open to the reader and to the personnel
expected to act on the resolution. For this reason, an unplanned
outcome of this resolution and corporate Synod’s could actually be greater frustration and dissatisfaction. The question of
transparency and accountability exists on or below a layer of
apathy and disconnectedness. It is not known precisely how
large of an issue accountability and transparency is at the level
of the individual congregant, compared to the voices calling for
improvements in transparency and accountability. Is transparency a broad concern, or a narrowly focused one?
A second challenge to the fulfillment of 9–04A is that the
resolution did not specify where or how the desired reporting
on special appeals was to be located, disseminated, or disclosed
other than speak to “its [corporate Synod’s] varied communication channels.” Without a solid grasp of where concerned individuals actually go when trying to find this kind of information, the risk of missing the target audience through incorrect
channel selection increases and the cost of using all available
channels is disproportionate to the size of the group seeking
information.
A third challenge is that the expectation for transparency
and accountability is different across the range of individuals,
groups, and organizations within the Synod itself. What might
be satisfactory for one can simultaneously be unsatisfactory
for a different person apart from some objective, independent
benchmark against which the Synod can be compared.

MADV received broad support from other departments
and employees in compiling the information necessary to satisfy
one broadly accepted benchmark of consumer protection: the
Better Business Bureau/Wise Giving Alliance. Its twenty performance standards for nonprofit accountability exemplify objectivity with an eye to the protection of contributor interests. In
a week-long dialogue with the BBB auditing team, the LCMS
demonstrated and documented its commitment to each of the
standards, resulting in it the BBB awarding the LCMS Accredited Charity Status.
MADV collaborated with LCMS COMMS and others to
create a user-friendly online portal to additional transparency
and accountability resources, lcms.org/giving/transparency. The
reader is encouraged to access that portal to assess whether it
helps satisfy the intent of Resolution 9–04A.
Transparency regarding the average annual cost to the
LCMS of engaging contributors, soliciting funds, and administering gifts is disclosed in a public “Statement of Gift Utilization.” The ratio of annual expenditures by MADV to overall
Synod spending is disclosed in the audited financial statements.
2019 Convention Workbook

In 2016, the board enacted a policy placing a limit on how
much of charitable revenue can be allocated to cover fundraising and donor-care costs, essentially guaranteeing an acceptable
percentage passed on for program and ministry. Contributors
can see these limits disclosed on the Synod website. The LCMS
performs under the defined limits for “prudent” specified by the
Better Business Bureau, Guidestar, and Charity Navigator. The
absence of a board-determined method for financing MADV
(or prior fundraising operations) was one contributing factor
to the LCMS having an undesignated net asset deficit (internal
borrowing). And while progress is being made on that front, advancement expenses are still not fully funded by allocations of
contributed revenues.
Transparency with regard to “special appeals” began in the
form of periodic website-hosted financial statements covering
contributions received and expended in the wake of major disasters. These reports continue to be supplied; they have shifted
from event-specific reports to regular fiscal year period reports
and final fiscal year summaries after observing that once disaster events begin to overlap, reports become increasingly confusing, complex, and difficult to prepare. In 2019, MADV publicly
posted a report disclosing performance statistics on all of its
core and special direct mail appeals conducted in the Synod’s
fiscal year 2018.
Resolution 9–04A specifically referenced the production of
an LCMS annual report, which was released in November 2018
(reference https://files.lcms.org/wl/?id=Zx6yskW1AqVHJsL20
EuETMmmCoKnOCHM). First distributed as an insert in the
annual “State of the Synod” issue of the Lutheran Witness, the
LCMS made an enhanced version available online, and the print
version further disseminated in the winter 2018–19 issue of Lutherans Engage. The delay from the 2016 Convention to a 2018
release is attributable to a long list of challenges and puzzles too
granular to describe in this workbook.
MADV continues to document Synod’s fundraising and
contributor care policies, procedures, and processes, in an effort
to further protect donors and serve them well. It discloses the
staff Code of Ethics and the Donor Bill or Rights, defining the
relationship between the LCMS, fundraising staff, and the contributor for the purpose of protecting donors from abuse. It also
subjected one program, the LCMS Joint Seminary Fund, to an
internal auditing process after hearing rumors that the LCMS
was misappropriating or misrepresenting those restricted gifts
for other purposes. The audit convincingly showed that these
rumors had no merit whatsoever. The results of the Joint Seminary Fund audit are publicly accessible on the transparency
portal and include a recommendation to produce a publicly accessible operations manual. The now-available Joint Seminary
Fund operations manual is serving as a model for the production of similar documents for other fundraising programs, such
as the Christ’s Care for Children child-sponsorship program
and Project 24’s at-risk childcare centers in Kenya. The MADV
unit continues to periodically update and disseminate a “white
paper” about the development, need for, and impact of the Network Supported Missionary model, a document which is also
publicly available online at no cost.
MADV and the LCMS are also being publicly transparent about Mission Central in Iowa and its relationship to the
Synod’s organizational structure. Mission Central is an extension of MADV, and thus an important extension of the LCMS.