LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 153

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
area of information technology, accounting software, and common
efforts toward distance education in support of commissioned minister colloquy. Its successor, the Commission for University Education, is for good reason not charged with such business coordination. Its focus must be on confession and mission rather than
on administration and operations, areas that demand, instead, the
focused attention of the several boards of regents and their executives. The Synod’s imposition of coordinative or collaborative efforts would be incongruent with the present approach and, based on
the schools’ experience with limited previous attempts to do so, ultimately unproductive. The institutions cannot afford to be saddled
with shared solutions that may not fit; the mechanisms the schools
devise together to lend efficiency to their operations simply must
be immediately responsive and clearly accountable to the institutions served. In recognition of the value such shared endeavors may
have in preserving and extending the schools’ mission capacity, the
Synod Board of Directors is to be permitted to extend to them the
same benefits available to the several schools.
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Synod in convention implore the boards of
regents and presidents of affiliated colleges and universities that,
being mindful of their common confession and mission, of the Synod’s vast historical investment in and present and future reliance on
the schools, and of the great responsibility incumbent on them as
wise stewards—for the church’s sake—of limited resources, they
seek diligently and urgently opportunities for coordination, cooperation, and consolidation of operations, in part or in whole, that
will reduce unnecessary duplication, share best-in-class resources
and leadership, strengthen the institutions’ ability to weather challenges, and enhance their ability together to deliver effectively on
their mission objectives; and be it further
Resolved, That Bylaws 3.10.6.10–3.10.6.10.1 be added as follows:
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
Common endeavor(s) of affiliated schools
3.10.6.10 Affiliated colleges and universities of the Synod are
urged to conduct themselves materially in accordance with “our
Lord’s will that the diversities of gifts should be for the common
profit (1 Cor 12:4–31; Constitution Preface),” strengthening
one another through coordination, collaboration, consultation,
and efficient consolidation of operations, wherever prudent and
practically feasible.
3.10.6.10.1 Any number of affiliated colleges and universities may
together incorporate an entity or entities to provide for common services, with governance to be vested in the participating
schools. Such an entity is neither an agency nor an affiliate of
the Synod. The Board of Directors of the Synod may extend or
withdraw recognition of such an entity as a common endeavor
of affiliated schools, eligible, for example, for purposes of employment, financing, granting, and endowment to the same benefits as its constituent affiliated schools.
F. TO REVISE BYLAWS RELATED
TO GOVERNING BOARDS
OF AFFILIATED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
In keeping with the charge of 2019 Res. 7-03 to “review the composition, size, and selection of boards of regents” and to “review
the financial models for the institutions,” the committee reviewed
the composition and charge of boards of regents as the “governing

153

bodies corporate” of the several schools. Existing bylaws dictate
excessively detailed governance and even management details for
the boards of regents, some of which are severely outdated, and
would be even more so upon recognition of college and university affiliate status. New bylaws are needed to express simply and
directly the relationship of affiliation between the Synod and the
schools, keeping at the forefront the regents’ responsibility and authority to act in the interest of our common confession and mission,
while allowing the schools freedom to manage their own business
affairs and to seek such cooperative endeavors and organic unions
as may be beneficial.
While a variety of approaches have been proposed for restructuring the boards of regents, the present structure of the boards, with
strong representation elected by the congregational members of
the Synod, aligns with the furtherance of Synod’s confession and
mission objectives through the schools. Continuity of governance
is also important at this time of transition from agency to affiliate
relationships, together with the introduction of CUE accreditation.
While the screening of regents for basic qualifications has aided
the selection of qualified regents, specific training regarding responsibilities to the Synod and the task of governance will be useful to enhancing the function of the boards of regents as effective
governing boards. Structurally, only minimal changes have been
made.
With regard to the nomination and election/appointment of regents,
many new process ideas were discussed. While it was generally
affirmed that the present model, combining local and national election and board and ecclesiastical supervisory appointment, does
provide a helpful diversity of impressions and of gifts on the boards
of regents, it was also generally acknowledged that the model is
certainly not uniformly effective or efficient. While certainly possible that an alternative model could be integrated relatively easily
with the other changes here presented, no clearly superior model
presented itself in the committee’s work, and it was felt that this
proposal already gave the present convention enough to consider
and that changes to appointment and/or election of regents should
only be undertaken after further careful study and consideration.
More important at present, it was felt, was to emphasize the above
role of each board of regents as a unified whole, and to develop
boards for and to hold boards accountable to this purpose. Regents
do not serve disjoint constituencies with disjoint interests, some
representing the district, some the Synod, some appointees, the institution itself or other key stakeholders; rather, an effective board
of regents brings a diversity of highly developed individual abilities together as a unified, self-regulating, and responsible actor,
intent on and successful at governing the institution in coherent
pursuit of its essential purpose. Attention has therefore been given
to the governance task committed to these boards, and to equipping the boards for this task. These institutions, though they will no
longer be agencies of the Synod, remain institutions of the church,
responsible and accountable to the congregations of the Synod for
their fidelity to the church’s confession and their execution of the
church’s mission. As this is not only Synod’s interest but the reason for being of each institution, the primary responsibility of each
board—for which it is held accountable through accreditation—is
to govern its president, faculty, and staff, its overall and individual
programs, consistently in this direction.
The present model of accepting nominations from every agency,
college and university, congregation, and, indeed, member of
2023 Convention Workbook