# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S63 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) SYNOD REPORTS 63 Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) can answer ques- tions regarding the procedures being followed in this matter. August 2005: Believing that Synod policy gives the BCS the right to fill the post of ADNIS after simply consulting with, rather than gaining the approval of, the Synod President, the BCS issues a call to its selected candidate for this job. (The candidate eventually would return the call out of concern over the confusion surrounding the status of the job and his call to it.) November 2005: On the heels of the COP rejecting the entire slate of candidates for DNIS, the BCS resolves to ask the chair- man of the COP to meet with the BCS to explain exactly what the COP is looking for in DNIS candidates. Scheduling problems pre- clude such a meeting, although subsequent conversations reveal that at least some district presidents are looking for candidates with deeper backgrounds in journalism and no known connections with any political faction in the Synod. The BCS maintains, as it still does today, that the candidates it proffered to the COP—sea- soned pastors with doctoral degrees, respected theologians and professors, accomplished authors, and superb and experienced communicators of many stripes—are entirely qualified and suit- able for the DNIS job. March 2006: In response to the Synod President’s issuing the executive order blocking any hiring in the department, the BCS submits a series of nine questions to the CCM regarding the rela- tionship of the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions to executive authority. When the CCM opinions come out, both the BCS and the President’s Office can point to language in the opin- ions that would seem to support their respective positions and ac- tions concerning the ADNIS. April 2006: In the continuing absence of both a DNIS and an ADNIS on the Communications Department staff, the BCS ap- points a five-member Standing Committee on News and Informa- tion to work with staff on overseeing the contents of The Lutheran Witness. Meanwhile, a previously appointed committee continues its role of advising staff on Reporter. August 2006: The BCS submits to the COP a second slate of five candidates for DNIS. Two of the five names had appeared on the original slate. September 2006: The COP, short of outright rejecting the sec- ond slate of DNIS candidates, moves instead to table the matter for the indefinite future. November 2006: The COP takes no new action on the slate of DNIS candidates. Correspondence ensues between the BCS chair- man and the Synod President, as well as between the BCS chair- man and the chairman of the COP, resulting in a meeting between the latter two parties. The purpose of the meeting is for the COP chairman to explain the COP’s rationale for not approving any of the candidates. The meeting is cordial but produces no satisfactory resolution in the minds of the BCS. January 2007: The BCS appeals to the COP to act decisively— an up or down vote—on the second slate of DNIS candidates. The COP again takes no new action, thereby leaving, in effect, the tabled status of the matter. March 2007: The BCS submits an overture to the July conven- tion asking delegates to change a bylaw so that in the future the BCS will be free to appoint the DNIS without the involvement or approval of the COP. The BCS includes this information in its Workbook report to ex- plain to delegates, and to the entire Synod, why the key post of Di- rector of News and Information Services has lain vacant, at the time of this writing, for nearly two years. The BCS: Past, Present, Future When the current membership of the BCS first convened in 2004, it found a far different Communications Department from that of 1984—a time not long after the department had been recon- figured and given its current Bylaw functions. For one thing, the 2004 department was about 75 percent smaller. In 1984, communicationswise, the BCS was all things to all people. It did the bidding and buying, the writing and layout, the typesetting and printing for virtually all departments. It produced most everyone’s ads, brochures, videos, and direct-mail pieces. Back then, other boards and commissions didn’t have their own communications arms; it all resided in the BCS. We can understand why this changed—why the Synod’s com- munications got dispersed. Other departments wanted more con- trol over their own publications and other communications vehicles, especially those that were instrumental in helping the de- partments raise money for their ministries. However, with this dispersal came a fracturing in the Synod’s communications, and with this fracturing, or fragmentation, came problems—including publication overload. Today, the Synod has too many publications of too little value. We say so much, so often, we end up saying nothing. We produce more publications than a normal member of the Synod could ever hope to read (or want to read). Beyond that, there is little consistency in our publications—no clear visual identity and no standard of editorial or graphic qual- ity. A person could look at a dozen LCMS publications and not re- alize that two of them, much less all 12, came from the same place, belonged to the same family. We need consolidation. We need fewer publications that, though fewer, reach more people than we are reaching now. Fewer publications also would mean a savings in costs. We need a flagship publication that truly is a flagship. It needs to be a “privilege of membership” magazine that goes to every home, every month (or perhaps every other month), for free. It needs to be The Lutheran Witness, for the Witness, for reasons de- scribed earlier, is the only choice that makes sense. (“Privilege of membership” magazines, by the way, are not the wave of the future. That wave arrived some time ago. We're just not on it yet.) As Stated previously, the Witness can be whatever the Synod wants it to be. It can be our features magazine, as it is now—our chief source of inspiring and educational stories centering on Christ, the church and its ministries, and our beliefs, including guidance on how those beliefs pertain to issues in family and so- ciety. However, the Witness also can be our primary teller of outreach and Ablaze! success stories. It can be a major development and marketing device. It can be a guidebook of practical helps, a sharer of national and district news, and a steady reminder of the impor- tance of knowing about and supporting our Synod’s “common- good” ministries. Furthermore, without necessarily going back entirely to 1984, it can absorb as many smaller LCMS publications as the church sees fit. A super publication can do the job better than a jumble of mini-publications can do on their own. The critical thing is that every LCMS household—all 800,000 or 900,000 of them—gets a substantial, quality piece on a regular basis, for free, from the national church office. Right now, the Wit- ness barely reaches a quarter of our households, and it’s the biggest thing we’ve got. We must understand the importance of reaching all of our households on a consistent basis, and we must be willing to pay for the privilege. The BCS stands ready to help sharpen, enhance, and unify the Synod’s messages and the distribution of those messages, including over the Synod’s Web site—which, for reasons we cannot compre- hend (especially in light of our Bylaw functions), the BCS does not currently administer. We want to help the Synod send out focused messages more effectively to a broader audience at a lower cost. We want our church to establish a more consistent LCMS identity, or “brand,” and touch people in their homes with (among other 2007 Convention Workbook