LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1986, Page 66

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

eee

66 REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

President. As a matter of fact, during the past decade there
has been a measurable growth in services provided
through our district structures. This is as it should be, in
my judgment, provided we do not become simply a feder-
ation of autonomous districts. A great deal of effort has
been given to developing a strong sense of solidarity and
cooperation between district and national structures, and
I believe considerable progress has been made. If we are
to remain a strong confessional church, we must be ready
to explore with seriousness and breadth the possibilities
of increased joint planning and use of networking tech-
niques. We need to make greater use of circuit structures,
as well, and we should not hesitate to recognize and
strengthen those areas of administration and service that
can best be done nationally. Whether or not a different
structure is needed to make decisions between conven-
tions, as some feel, we need to make sure that our struc-
tures are truly representative of our people and that
decisions truly reflect their sentiments and convictions.

Triennial Convention Sequence. We are now completing
our first triennial convention sequence after a long period
of following a biennial approach. The current approach has
worked quite satisfactorily from the standpoint of the syn-
odical administration. Boards and staffs have been able to
devote more time to the services requested of them. More-
over, the triennial sequence has given a great deal of op-
portunity for creative and helpful utilization of circuit
gatherings—efforts that need to be expanded during the
coming years. A considerable cost savings has also been
realized because of the reduced frequency of national and
district conventions.

Synodical Vice Presidents. For several years, synodical
task forces and commissions on structure have studied the
synodical vice-presidential offices. One question has been
the proper definition of the role of the First Vice President.
In my judgment, he should be chosen by the Synod pri-
marily because of his qualifications to succeed to the office
of the President, should that become necessary, rather
than to assist the President in the day-to-day operations
of the synodical administration (something he might not
find particularly challenging or something for which others
might be better suited). Perhaps regarding that office as
a part-time position, like the other vice-presidencies, would
be a solution, particularly if eligibility for the office were
not unduly restricted. In such an arrangement, the First
Vice President would continue all board memberships cur-
rently provided in the Bylaws, and the President and
Board of Directors would always have the freedom to ex-
tend to him a full-time position as Assistant to the Presi-
dent.

Another difficulty in the synodical vice-presidential of-
fices has been that a number of talented nominees for these
positions have declined to serve because our current By-
laws require persons holding other positions to give them
up in order to serve as a Vice President. Since all Vice
Presidents should be chosen because of their qualifications
to provide advice and counsel to the President, as well as
their ability to represent him on behalf of the Synod, we
should no doubt broaden our basis of eligibility in order to
encourage all qualified nominees to stand for election. To
that end, we might consider all pastors of the Synod, in-

cluding those who are retired, as being eligible for our part-
time vice-presidencies, except those who are full-time em-
ployees of the Synod’s boards, commissions, and other ent-
ities.

These questions need attention by the convention. How-
ever, as helpful as such changes might be, I believe the
present Praesidium has served very well and that the pres-
ent arrangement is also quite workable.

Board Memberships. The size and complexity of the
Synod have made it almost impossible for the regular nom-
inations and election processes to provide boards with the
expertise and representative character they need to carry
out their Bylaw responsibilities with maximum effective-
ness. In my judgment, this convention should give atten-
tion to various proposals to strengthen board memberships
and the processes by which members are chosen.

Termination of Executives. Prior to 1981, synodical ex-
ecutives served on a term appointment basis that made
provisions for due process if termination or dismissal was
desired. In 1981, new Bylaws were adopted that discon-
tinue term appointments and provide for dismissal at the
pleasure of the appointing authorities. For the top exec-
utives, the appointing authorities are the board or com-
mission and the President. The Bylaws clearly intend a
collegial process for the appointment or dismissal of ex-
ecutives. Just as boards and the President, in keeping with
the traditional polity of the Synod, have consulted and
reached concurrence in the appointment of executives, so
a similar process is intended when a dismissal action is
sought. Ideally, neither the board nor the President should
be in a position of vetoing each other’s wishes in such sit-
uations.

During the past triennium, the collegial process in-
tended for the appointing authorities has worked very well
in all instances where the possibility of termination has
been considered, with one exception. In that case, the board
has twice taken a unilateral action, and then asked me
either to concur or veto that action. The first time this
occurred, I responded by spending a great deal of time
reviewing concerns with both the board and the executive.

Subsequently, I appointed two special review committees,
one consisting of district presidents, and the other of per-
sons with personnel qualifications, in order to identify the
problems and suggest solutions short of dismissal. After
an interval of a year and a half, that board has again called
for the dismissal of its executive, and asked me to concur
with that action. In the meantime, the board has also pe-
titioned this convention to eliminate what it has called the
“veto power” of the President in such matters.

I seriously question the wisdom of the synodical Presi-
dent’s vetoing a board decision, and I am reluctant to par-
ticipate in an acquiesce-or-veto mode of administration,
especially when a collegial process would clearly be pref-
erable. I have therefore taken no action either to concur
or disagree with the dismissal action of the board pending
the guidance of the convention on the general principles
involved.

Nominations Process. For many years, the Synod has
struggled with the process by which qualified nominees
are presented to the convention for election to our various
boards. On the one hand, we have wanted to retain the

eee RENE RTE RLEE PCT A NRE EN At AACA ECCT

FgrneTusn UU nTEUnSESEDTuDENTEnTTUnTannntEn TT ITIIT NDUTUnTITTT nen eideeeenneiemenanmneidial

sateen 14 tee wiereesiplannpeen ine rtbeitgreneene Stitt enn