LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 48

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

48 TASK FORCE

E. Investments

Considerable interest in investments has been shown
throughout the Synod in the past years. Frequent questions
include: Are there adequate checks and balances covering the
Treasurer? Are pension funds properly invested for maximum
return? Are the funds left in trust in the Foundation secure?
The Task Force considered these and other questions. As in
other areas, it found duplication of functions which it proposes
to eliminate. It also found that much more coordination is
desirable.

The Task Force concludes that there are four types of
investments that must be recognized in the synodical structure:
(1) cash flow investments, (2) trust investments, (3) pension
and survivor plan investments, and (4) Church Extension
investments. Since major changes were approved in Church
Extension at the last convention, the Task Force proposes no
further changes in those Bylaws. Changes are desirable,
however, in the other areas.

The Task Force proposes that the Treasurer, as the Trust
Officer of the Synod, should be the prime liaison person
between all financial-type boards. However, to preserve proper
checks and balances the Task Force has proposed Bylaw
changes which would make the Treasurer accountable to each
board which he serves in a trust capacity as well as to the
Board of Directors. The Treasurer would be appointed by the
Board of Directors to ensure continuing accountability between
conventions. The Task Force is also providing for an audit
committee of the Board of Directors, consisting of outside
directors, to review the activities of the Treasurer as well as
other boards. The Treasurer will be primarily responsible for
cash flow management.

The Task Force recommends:

1. That the Treasurer of the Synod, as the Trust
Officer of the Synod, be the prime liaison person between
all financial boads, functioning under their respective
policies and accountable to each such board in that
capacity;

2. That the Board of Trustees for Trust Funds be
combined with the Board of Trustees of the LCMS
Foundation so that the Foundation becomes the Trust
Department of the Synod, thus eliminating duplication
between the Foundation and the Board of Trustees of the
Synod. (The desirability of this action is already evi-
denced by the fact that the Board of Directors has
recently appointed the same people to both boards);

3. That changes be introduced in the structure and
function of the Board of Managers—Worker Benefit
Plans and that the responsibilities for the Pension Plan
for Pastors and Teachers be transferred from the Board
of Trustees for Trust Funds to the Board of Managers;

4. That the Board of Managers be expanded to
include at least five laypersons with investment exper-
tise and at least three persons with expertise in the
design of benefit plans.

F. Staff Supervision

The Task Force believes that boards should be permitted,
within certain restrictions, to choose the individuals who are to
render staffservices to that board. However, itis also important
that these individuals be compatible with the rest of the
headquarters staff. Since the Synodical Service Commission is
now being used only in very rare instances, namely, only in the
selection of the chief staff officer of a board, Task Force II has
come to the conclusion that it has outlived its usefulness. It
would seem that each board should be free to choose its staff
persons, with the help of the Personnel Department, with the
approval, however, of the President of the Synod, who must
also approve any extension or termination of services.

Since many of the executive staff persons now are not
pastors or teachers but laypeople, the Task Force is recom-
mending that the same conditions of employment should
prevail as are generally operative for the typical member of our
congregations; namely, that individuals are no longer to be
engaged on a four-year contract basis (most of the existing
executive personnel are no longer engaged in that way), but
that all such personnel will serve at the pleasure of their board.

With federal and state regulations and other factors
involved, it may not be as simple as some people imagine to
terminate the employment of some who are found to be
unsuited for their tasks. But it does seem that all executive
employees should at least be treated equally. Furthermore, it
should be noted that under the four-year contract arrangement
the employee often seems free to accept appointment to another
position without recompensing the Synod for terminating the
contract before its expiration date. On the other hand, in a few
instances when employees were terminated, they insisted that
the provisions of the contract for the remainder of the term be
fulfilled. This situation does not seem to be equitable.

It is assumed that the staff person’s first reponsibility is to
his own board. However, since the need for coordination from
day to day is extremely important, such coordination should be
effected through the office of the President, who is the chief
executive officer of the Synod by Bylaw definition.

Task Force II recommends:

1. That the Board of Directors have the responsibility
to approve all positions and position descriptions and to
give approval to fill a certain position at any given time;

2. That each board be permitted, in consultation with
the Personnel Director, to fill staff positions with the
provision, however, that the individual to be named
receive prior approval of the President, whose approval
shall also be secured before termination;

3. That the headquarters staff be responsible primar-
ily to the respective boards and commissions which they
serve in the implementation of programs;

4. That, however, the President of the Synod be
responsible for the daily supervision and coordination of
staff. Such supervision by the President shall be in
accordance with the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolu-
tions of the Synod and also in accordance with the
decisions of said boards and commissions and, as
applicable, of the Board of Directors. Actions of the
President regarding any conflict with decisions of
boards and commissions shall be subject to appeal.

| G. District Representation in the Nominating Process
.

The charge given Task Force II included the mandate to
decentralize wherever possible and to encourage grassroots
involvement. District representation in the nominating process
clearly supports this principle and aids in the process of
finding the best available individuals from all parts of the
Synod to stand for election to these important positions.

Task Force II recommends:

1. That each District elect, through its regular elec-
tion procedures at the District convention, one member
of the Committee for Convention Nominations, plus an
alternate;

2. That one-half of the Districts (in alphabetical
order) elect a professional church worker and one-half
elect a layman, with the roles reversed every three years;

3. That although subcommittee structures would be
employed as in the past, the entire committee must
determine each slate;

4. That nominations from the floor will still be
received;

5. That the Secretary of the Synod handle the prelim-
inary work of listing the positions to be filled and
requirements for the same and issue the first call for
nominations.

H. Circuit Involvement

Previous conventions have encouraged greater involvement
of the Circuits in the life of the Synod. The Task Force agrees
fully in the interest of broadening the base of involvement of
the membership. One of the primary ways to express our
congregational polity is to have congregations celebrate the
life and mission of one another, support one another by
developing common programs for the training of lay leaders,
and where appropriate, consider and propose plans for future
mission outreach in the Circuit area in line with District
policies.