LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1983, Page 187

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

STRUCTURE AND CONSTITUTION 187

clergymen, one teacher, and two laypersons, with the synodi-
cal Secretary and the Administrative Officer of the Board of
Directors as advisory members.

The functions of the Commission on Structure were set forth
in the bylaws as follows:

The Commission on Structure shall—

a. conduct a continuing review of the organizational structure of
the Synod, including its Districts and its Circuits, and make
proposals to succeeding conventions for improvements;

b. actas a resource committee to convention floor committees on
all proposals to alter the synodical structure:

c. serve aS a resource committee to Districts with regard to
organizational structure.

The following were appointed by the President: Clergvmen
William Huener and August Mennicke: teacher Arthur Ahl-
schwede; laypersons John Daniel and Earl Kuhl. The com-
mission subsequently elected John Daniel as chairman and
Arthur Ahlschwede as secretary.

The commission held its first meeting on Oct. 14-15, 1982.
shortly after being appointed. By early March it had held a
total of five two-day meetings and had addressed itself to a
vigorous carrying out of its assignment in the brief time
allotted to it.

The commission concluded that its report to the convention
would need to consist of two parts. The first part simply lists
items which are under study by the commission at this time
and, ina few instances, also details some of the alternatives in
the hope that there might be some reaction and evaluation
from the field. In the second part of its report the commission
offers some firm recommendations for convention action al-
ready in 1983. The distinction between these two sections
should be kept in mind.

I. Items for Further Study

We now list someitems which will receive continuing study
on the part of the Commission on Structure before any firm
recommendations are made to a synodical convention.

A. Board of Directors

The commission is continuing to study the possibility of
restructuring the Board of Directors as to its membership and
enlarging its functions between conventions. If the latter is to
be the case, then it is felt that there needs to be a wider
representation on the board itself. Perhaps some type of
representation should be developed whereby the various geo-
; graphical areas of the Synod are indeed represented. This could
tbe done through the election to the board by the convention of
one District President and one or more parish pastors and
laypersons from each of several areas in addition to the
election of various members at large. It is anticipated that all
members will be elected by the convention itself and not by any
particular region, although a system of preliminary nomina-
tions coming from the areas may well be developed, with the
convention having the right to add names to the slate of
candidates.

Under discussion is the possibility of some type of advisory
representation on the part of the boards which are most
directly involved in the work of the Synod between conventions
so that there can be at least a degree of participatory
decisionmaking.

The objective of any restructuring would be tocreatea body
which would be more representative of the Synod at large and
would therefore be given enlarged responsibilities (without
centralization of power') to serve as a representative body
“acting in behalf of the convention between conventions.
“Coordination” would be a major word in the vocabulary of
this new board. Its name could very well be changed to indicate
that its scope of responsibility would be enlarged beyond that
of merely a business oriented board of directors.

There is also the possibility of eventually replacing the

proposed planning council with a larger representative church
council, acting for the convention between conventions, while
at the same time retaining a board of directors to handle legal,
___ property, and fiduciary matters.
: All this lies in the future and may indeed never become a
reality. The commission does, however. have some important
recommendations to make at this time. These are detailed in
section II of our report.

B. Program Boards

The commission considered it a mandate to observe care-
fully how well the new organizational structure of the Synod is
functioning. In this respect major attention must be given to
the program boards, as well as the support services boards.

The commission early on received the information that the
Board for Parish Services believed that perhaps too many
responsibilities had been lodged in it. Any restructuring
flowing from that fact would involvea careful look at the other
program boards, together with their standing committees.

One possibility that has suggested itself would be to have
two program boards operating in behalf of the congregations
(Missions and Professional Education) as at present, and two
boards also operating in support of the congregations. All
noneducationa! parish activities could then be removed from
the present Board for Parish Services, and the board could be
renamed “Board for Parish Education.” The Boards for Evan-
gelism Services and Youth Services could well form the other
parish-oriented board (and be named “Board for Parish
Services”) and include in its responsibilities also the standing
committees for congregational administration and for worship
and perhaps also the congregational and District service
functions of the Board for Social Ministry Services.

Another variation on that theme would be to permit the
Commission on Worship once again to be a freestanding
commission. It has also been suggested that major projects,
such as hymnals and related books, could be developed by
special task forces of experts.

The commission has not arrived at any definitive con-
clusion, nor has it had the opportunity for extensive discus-
sions with the boards that would be involved. We have
sketched some of these alternatives in order to generate
response, not only from those who are at work within these
various synodical departments, but also from those who are
being served by them. There was a strongly felt need several
years ago to have only one board serving the parishes; but
perhaps this is expecting too much of one board. Furthermore,
it should be remembered that although Task Force II had
proposed that only one board approach the parishes, the
convention itself decided there should be three, by spinning off
from the proposed Board for Parish Services a Board for
Evangelism Services and a Board for Youth Services.

C. Standing Committees

The commission concluded that it had a responsibility to
monitor the work of standing committees, how this new type of
structure is functioning. In section II of our report specific
proposals are being set forth. Here it should be mentioned that
in general the Commission on Structure holds that the concept
of standing committees is sound and that it is workable. It
provides boards and staffs with a uniform method to draw on
levels of expertise and specialization to better accomplish their
assigned functions. Several questions regarding specific
standing committees not covered in section II continue to
receive attention by the commission.

D. Franchise

The convention decided to give the recommendations of
Task Force II on this vital subject to a special ad hoc
committee. The Commission on Structure is aware of that.
Nevertheless, it has a keen interest in whatever the ad hoc
committee might recommend and certainly in whatever the
convention might adopt. The commission feels that some of the
perennial questions concerning the status of teachers. of
vacant congregations, and of dual parishes need continuing
study.

E. Adjudication Procedures

The commission is also aware of the fact that Task Force II
itself had recommended that the revision of adjudication
procedures be entrusted to a special ad hoc committee. Once
again, this too will be of interest to this commission.

F. District and Synod Relations

This is a very large subject and requires much further study
and discussion. Some phases of this issue have already been

—_oo