LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 46

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

46 TASK FORCE

possible to the patterns set forth above.

f. Terms of office shall be restricted to six years at
the longest and no boards or commissions shall any
longer be exempt from the limited tenure regulations.

6. That the Bylaws provide for the appointment by
the program and support services boards of small desig-
nated standing committees of specialists which will give
assistance to board and staff in the specific areas
assigned to various boards, with delegation of decision
making possible as long as supervision is retained by the
board, the size of each to be determined by the Board of
Directors after consultation with the respective board.

7. That the following definitions be approved:

a. A program board is an officially established
group of elected persons charged with administrative
responsibility for a programmatic function of the
Synod.

b. A support services board is an officially estab-
lished group of persons appointed by the Board of
Directors with the approval of the President and
charged with administrative responsibility for cer-
tain support services assigned to it. Members are
appointed in view of their special abilities and experi-
ence in certain closely defined areas of competence.

c. A standing committee is a small group of
specialists appointed by the Board of Directors. a
program board, or a support services board, who
provide professional or technical assistance to a
board. With the approval of the President, or upon
instruction by the Board of Directors, a board may or
shall, as the case may be, delegate certain responsi-
bilities to such a committee while retaining super-
vision. The size of each is to be determined by the
Board of Directors after consultation with the
respective board.

d. A commission is a group of persons elected or
appointed as prescribed in the Bylaws, rendering a
precisely defined service function of the Synod and
responsible as the case may be to the convention, to
the President of the Synod, or to the Board of
Directors.

e. A council consists of persons from various
administrative areas or agencies, with the primary
function of coordination.

_f. A department is an operating unit which is
directly responsible to the Board of Directors.

g. A subcummittee consists of persons who are
voting or advisory members of a board or commission
who perform a specific function and are in a reporting
relationship to the parent group. This may beeithera
standing subcommittee or an ad hoc committee.

h. A task force is a group which has an ad hoc
assignment to accomplish a specific task, has a
definite expiration date, and does not necessarily
consist of members of the appointing body.

i. An agency of the Synod is an instrumentality
other than a congregation, whether or not separately
incorporated, which the Synod or its Board of
Directors has caused to be formed to further the
Synod’s objectives and includes without limitation
each board, commission, seminary, college, and Dis-
trict as well as Concordia Publishing House, Con-
cordia Historical Institute, The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod Foundation, and the Lutheran
Church Extension Fund—Missouri Synod.

» C. Board of Directors

There has been much confusion regarding decision making
between conventions. Ordinarily the various boards elected by
the convention or appointed in ways prescribed by the conven-
tion should be regarded as the first line of decision making.
There are times, however, when their decision-making powers
seem to conflict, when duplication of program develops, or
when there are programmatic gaps that need to be filled.
Furthermore, it would seem that there should be some addi-

tional mechanism which insures that the resolutions of the
Synod are carried out by the respective boards.

It appears that the Board of Directors would be the logical
group to whom such responsibilities should be assigned,
especially the responsibility of necessary decision making
between conventions as far as the prioritization, the implemen-
tation, and the coordination of the decisions of the convention
are concerned. Under the present Bylaws the Board of Directors
already has coordinating responsibilities that perhaps need to
be clarified.

However, to avoid the very real possibility of a Board of
Directors making major decisions in program areas not based
upon full information and expertise, Task Force II has come to
the conclusion to recommend to a limited extent the concept of
participatory decision making. It does not subscribe to that
theory if a Board of Directors consists entirely of representa-
tives of all program boards. Under the proposal being offered
by Task Force II, the chairmen of only three program boards
will be voting members of the Board of Directors, and members
of the Council of Administrators will be in attendance, except
for executive sessions. It is felt that in this way there will be the
type of open and full discussion and communication that is
necessary especially when there are difficulties of coordination
that must be overcome.

Task Force II also holds that the decision-making base
should be broadened. By enlarging slightly the Board of
Directors one may expect a greater degree of input, not only
from the various geographical areas of the Synod, but also on
the part of various interests.

It isan interesting fact that for the greater part ofits history
the Synod existed without a Board of Directors. The Board was
called into being first in 1920. At that time it was given a very
limited assignment: to be the legal representative of the Synod
and to be in charge of business transactions of the Synod
(purchase of property, etc.). That being the case, although the
number of the members of the Board of Directors was changed
several times in succeeding decades, the numerical balance
was always shifted toward laypersons, since they were
regarded as being more qualified in business affairs than the
average pastor or teacher.

Under the new concept, however, of an expanded purview
for the Board of Directors, it would seem that the principle of
clergy-lay’teacher representation which applies to synodical
conventions should be introduced also on the Board of Direc-
tors level. From the very beginning congregations felt that the
pastoral voice should be heard in the councils of the Synod
together with the voice of another representative of the congre-
gation, a layperson. Now with an expanded scope of responsi-
bility it would appear that the same principle, which has served
the Synod so well through the years, should be applied also to
the Board of Directors. While the exact number of clergy,
teachers, and lay members of the board cannot be determined
(since it is not known in advance who would be elected
chairmen of the three program boards), nevertheless, the
balance seems to be quite close as proposed by Task Force II.
Even if it is assumed that all three program board chairmen
would be clergymen, the proposed voting membership of the
Board of Directors would be: 11 pastors, 3 teachers, and 10
laymen.

Task Force I] is recommending, after careful study, that the
Treasurer of the Synod, in view of his responsibilities toward
the Board of Directors, be appointed by the Board of Directors.
As an appointed individual it is not proper for him to be a
voting member of the Board of Directors. However, since the
Treasurer is a corporate officer of the Synod and not simply a
staff person, it is suggested that he be made a nonvoting
member of the Board of Directors. The Treasurer is the Trust
Officer of the Synod and its various agencies and as such must
operate under the policy of those respective agencies, and
Bylaws to that effect are being proposed.

Task Force II recommends:

1. That representation on the Board of Directors be
expanded from 14 to 24 voting members consisting of the
following:

President

First Vice-President

Secretary

Five parish pastors