Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1969 · 48th Convention › Page 204
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1969, Page 204

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

204 SYNODICAL ADMINISTRATION

costs at Bethesda, Good Shepherd Home. and Mill Neck
M-nor (His Too): engaged a second CPA firm to make
a professional investigation of certain repeated charges
disseminated in the Synod; and authorized the obser-
vance of the 75th anniversary of work among the deaf.

IV. Recommendations

A. Formation and Realignment of Districts (New
York Resolution 4-30). Increasingly there seems to be
a need for the Synod to supply criteria of procedure and
viability to serve as guidelines for the formation of new
Districts or for the realignment of existing Districts.
The Board of Directors, acting upon instruction of the
New York convention, therefore recommends the fol-
lowing additions to Section 3.03 of the Bylaws:

3.03 Formation of Districts

a. The Synod decides when and whether a District shall
be formed, divided, realigned, or merged with another or
other Districts, or dissolved; determines the boundaries of
a District; and approves the name of a District. (Present
paragraph, with “realigned” inserted after “divided.”)

b. A proposal calling for the formation. division, realign-
ment. merger, or dissolution of a District or Districts may be
initiated by a synodical convention or may be presented to
a synocical convention by a District convention or the
synodical Board of Directors.

c. Such proposals shall —

1. be submitted to the President at least 6 months prior
to a synodical convention;

2, be produced in consultation with the Department of
Research and Statistics;

3. include a substantiated description of the nonviable
aspects of the current District(s) on the basis of criteria of
viability adopted from time to time by synodical conventions,
and shall specify the problems or factors which make the
adoption of the proposal advisable or necessary;

4. provide evidence that possible changes in the present
structure or function of the District(s) in order to meet
the problems have received thorough consideration and have
been deemed less desirable than the proposal being offered;

5. provide a specific and realistic development plan for
the proposed District(s), including detailed proposals for
staff personnel and financial operations;

6. be the object of an evaluation prepared by the synodi-
cal Board of Directors and submitted to the convention.

We also recommend that the Synod adopt the follow-
ing statements as criteria at the present time for judging
the viability of a proposed new or realigned District,
with the understanding that these criteria may be
amended by conventions as future needs dictate:

A viable District —

1. offers adequate parish services;

2. provides adequate mission development, guidance,
and support;

3. is adaptable and flexible in meeting new and
various needs for ministry;

4. has boundaries corresponding to the major com-
munications spheres in a given area;

5. centers in a metropolitan area and has boundaries
and internal structures adapted to the metropol-
itan areas within its boundaries;

6. evidences balance rather than mere homogeneity;

7. is compact in terms of travel patterns and travel
times;

8. has sufficient potential financial resources for its
own programs and for the support of the synodical
ministries;

9. is large enough to be effective and efficient.

B. Council of Auziliaries. For necessary background

we reprint Resolution 4-29 of the New York convention:
Whereas, The report of the committee on auxiliaries
calls the attention of the church to the need for coordina-

tion of the efforts of the various agencies operating within
the Districts and the Synod; and

WuereaS, Time did not permit study of the report of
the committee on auxiliaries by the various auxiliary
agencies of the Synod; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod thank the Board of Directors
and its study committee on auxiliaries for their efforts;
and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod endorse the principle of co-
operation and coordination between the Synod and its
auxiliaries; and be it further

Resolved, That the report of the committee on auxil-
iaries be studied by those parties affected with the re-
quest that they report to the Board of Directors the re-
sults of such study; and be it further

Resolved, That the question of the relationship be-
tween the proposed Council of Auxiliaries and the Coun-
cil of Lutheran Ministries be explored by the Board of
Directors of the Synod; and ke it finally

Resolved, That the results of these studies be commu-
nicated with appropriate recommendations by the Board
of Directors to the Synod in convention in 1969.

After further study and discussion the board is now
ready to make the following three recommendations:

1. To reaffirm the final words of the report of the
special committee and of the Council of Administrators:
“We believe that a Council of Auxiliaries, established
and operated as recommended, with a full-time coor-
dinator, will be of invaluable assistance to the auxilia-
ries and the Synod — to the work of the church”;

2. To include the existing members of the Council
of Lutheran Ministries as initial members of the Coun-
cil of Auxiliaries together with the Lutheran Women’s
Missionary League, the Lutheran Laymen’s League, the
Lutheran Education Association, the National Lutheran
Parent-Teacher League, and the Lutheran Medical Mis-
sion Association; and

3. To have the coordinator appointed by the Board
of Directors of the Synod, responsible to the Board of
Directors through the office of the Executive Director,
and salaried by the Synod.

C. Synodical Headquarters. In carrying out New
York Resolution 4-31 the Board of Directors appointed
a committee to study further the possible relocation of
synodical headquarters. On recommendation of this
committee the Board of Directors has decided that the
choice of new synodical headquarters should be limited
to three specific locations in the St. Louis area. Another
committee of local experts has been appointed to weigh
these three options and to make recommendations to
the Board of Directors. It is hoped that the board will
then be in a position to make its final recommendation
to the Synod when the convention meets in Denver.

BoarpD OF DIRECTORS
HERBERT MUELLER, Secretary